POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Computersaysno wrote: »

So out of the comprehensive 9 points raised, the assessor skimmed it, saw number 4 was GPEOL, jumped on it, allowed appeal and put their feet up with a cup of coffee.

I rather suspect they're not being given any time for a coffee break as they are so far behind their schedule. More like - 'Next, or our contract will be cancelled by the BPA, and we're all looking for new jobs!'

Coupon-mad

A win against PCM, maybe someone can make this link readable?!

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82213&st=0&gopid=888349&#entry888349

'Today I would like to share with you all my POPLA appeal success in challenging PCM LTD. I challenged them in regards to the genuine pre-estimate of loss and various other things like unclear signage etc. This goes to show that private parking firms don't really have a leg to stand on when they have to justify their so-called losses. Attached is the POPLA response, enjoy the read' BHC123

Umkomaas

Voila

Computersaysno

Umkomaas wrote: »

I rather suspect they're not being given any time for a coffee break as they are so far behind their schedule. More like - 'Next, or our contract will be cancelled by the BPA, and we're all looking for new jobs!'

I rather suspect you are correct, lol.:)

ric3vic

"Operator has sort to justify this".
I think the operator sought to justify!

Evidently the lack of coffee breaks has meant that the POPLA people have become illiterate.

Custard_Pie

Computersaysno wrote: »

This boy is obviously keen on saving his job. 2 minutes, job done.

Or, this is a good appeal and I don't want to tip off the internet population on what is a cracking appeal...

mib150

Umkomaas wrote: »

I rather suspect they're not being given any time for a coffee break as they are so far behind their schedule. More like - 'Next, or our contract will be cancelled by the BPA, and we're all looking for new jobs!'

Indeed! My POPLA appeal got an acknowledgment with a 6 week lead time!

hoohoo

This is an update to post #4, based on an e-conversation with the OP.

This is one of only two known POPLA decisions where POPLA ruled that the charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Presumably this was because it was early days and the assessors were not yet trained up.

After the POPLA verdict the parking company requested the hire company to pay the fine. This seems to me to be outrageous.
Even more outrageously, the hire company paid and then used the OP's credit card to charge him for the fine.

However the OP sensibly got his credit card company to reverse the transaction and he was not left out of pocket.

The net result is that the parking company got away with blue murder and got their money.
However, it was the hire company who got stiffed, and not the OP, so this was a completely happy ending and a lesson for the hire company.

Stroma

Where did you get that from?

Guys_Dad

iliko wrote: »

Just a update on the case. After loosing the appeal with PCM I appealed to POPLA and won.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number PM02210XXX arising
out of the presence at Plaza West, Reading, on 27 July 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark PE0XXXX.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
5762183538 2 04 November 2013

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 27 July 2013, an employee of the Operator observed a grey BMW with the
vehicle registration mark PE0XXXX parked on the private land at Plaza West,
Reading. The employee issued the parking charge notice on the basis that
the vehicle was ‘parked within a restricted area’ in breach of the displayed
terms and conditions. Therefore, the parking charge notice was correctly
issued.

The Appellant made representations to the Operator that he was the driver of
the vehicle at the material time. The Appellant disputes the issue of the
parking charge notice on the basis that there was inadequate and
insufficient signage on the land indicating the area where he parked was a
‘restricted area’.

Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed
clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the
signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.
The Operator has provided an image of the signage on the land, and the
terms state: ‘no parking in this area at any time; no parking outside of
designated parking areas; and no parking on yellow line/ paved / hatched or
landscaped areas’.

Both parties have provided photographs of the vehicle and the land in
question. From the Operator’s photographs, I note that a sign is displayed in
the vicinity of the Appellant’s vehicle. However, I note there is an entrance/
exit point, and a cross hatched area in front of the same. given the distance
of the Appellants vehicle from the signage, i am not satisfied that this sign
referred to the area where the Appellant parked.

The Appellant hasprovided photographs to show the land in front of his vehicle and I note there are no signs which seem to apply to where the Appellant parked.

Taking together all of the evidence before me, I must find that the Operator
has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had taken
reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the
Appellant.

Thus, on the balance of probabilities, I am minded to accept the
Appellant’s submission that there was insufficient signage displayed on the
land. Accordingly, I refuse this appeal. I need not decide on any further issues.

Assessor

Great result on SIGNAGE for a change. Well done. Although the last sentence is decidedly strangely worded !!!!!!