POPLA Decisions

trisontana

This thread:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82773&st=0

Is reporting a successful appeal against Armtrac at Lusty Glaze Car Park Newquay. As yet, there are no more details of the judgement.

Edit, some more details:-

'The appellant has raised the issue that the operator has not suffered any loss due to the appellants alleged parking contravention. The appellant submits that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the operators loss and so is not enforceable. The signage produced by the operator states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a "failure to comply" with the terms and conditions of the car park. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Consequently I have no evidence before me to refute the appellant's submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.'

trisontana

A newcomer to the list, the misleadingly named "UK Parking Patrol Office":-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79223&st=80&start=80

Result!!!!!
POPLA have ruled in our favour on the basis of not a genuine pre-estimate of costs.

Edit. This is the POPLA decision:-

Copy of POPLA decision:-
Reasons for Assessor’s Determination
The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence on private land, on 18 May 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx for parking in a no parking area.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a no parking area and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however , I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The signage produced by the Operator states that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £100 being issued. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the operator to prove that it is. The Operator has failed to address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Nozir Uddin
Assessor

Coupon-mad

VCS stuffed for no GPEOL at Humberside Airport, by UK-Giantsfan:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4744792

Hi guys , today I won my appeal . many thanks to all who helped. regards UK-GF



Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


On 2 July 2013 at Humberside Airport, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.

It is the operator’s case that the appellant stopped his vehicle in a no stopping area despite signage informing motorists about the parking terms and conditions.

It is the appellant’s case, amongst other things, that no losses have been demonstrated as a result of the alleged breach.

The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. The operator has attempted to address this in the case summary stating that amongst other things costs were incurred for the erection and maintenance of signage. However, I find that these costs were not incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Therefore I find that on this occasion the operator has not satisfied the burden.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

XXXXXXXXXXX
Assessor

:T

Coupon-mad

And another one!


UKCPS struggle and fail to address the GPEOL issue! :D


This was Circus4's thread where they composed their own POPLA appeal from forum guidance:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4682689

''We won!! Thanks to all for your advice. It was very much appreciated and very interesting.Please find below the adjudication:''


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ****** arising out of the presence at Newland Health Centre, on 26 May 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark **** ***.
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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
A parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark **** ***, for parking without displaying a valid parking permit.
The operator’ s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car park are clearly displayed on sign age throughout the site. The signage says: “Permit Holders Only” “Valid Permits must be displayed inside the front windscreen in full view.”” The operator has produced photographs of the vehicle which show that no parking permit was visibly//clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle on the date of the parking charge.
Thee appellant’s case is that the vehicle was not parked improperly and he is not liable for the parking charge. He states that the parking charge is punitive, unfair and unreasonable and it is not proportionate to any alleged breach of contract.
The operator rejected the appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking without displaying a valid permit on the windscreen of the vehicle.

They say that the charge is not a penalty and is payable upon a specified eventuality and is agreed too when a vehicle is parked on the land. They refer to the case of Bernstein where Lord Diplock LJ described the principles defining a penalty: “In the ordinary way a penalty is a sum which, by the terms of contract, a promisor agrees to pay to the promise in thee event of non-performance by the promisor of one or more of the obligations and which is excess of the damage caused by such non!-performance .” Lord Diplock says that sums payable upon a “specified eventuality” had not been held in any case to be a penalty and he was not prepared to extend the definition of ‘penalty’.

The operator does respond to the appellant’s submission that the charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and I appreciate their submissions, nevertheless, their submissions do not sufficiently address such issue.
Having considered all the evidence before me, I must find that on this particular occasion, the operator has insufficiently dealt with the issue of genuine pre-estimate off loss raised by the appelant. As the appellant raised this point, the burden of proof has shifted to the operator to prove that they do. The operator has not discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
04 November 2013

Aurrela Qerimi
Assessor

*************************************************

P.S. What a load of desperate old tripe from UKCPS! As usual! :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

And 'mufasa' is reporting a success against Vinci:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=4741185

Do show us the full decision please mufasa!

:T

Aaron_Aadvark

[Duplicate Entry]

Computersaysno

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:
Well POPLA adjudicators seem to have woken up to the prospect of the dole before Xmas........

GPEOL, GPEOL, GPEOL and GPEOL!!!

Love it!
:beer::beer::beer::beer:

Coupon-mad

Another GPEOL win of course - this time against our old friends WING:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81581&st=100&start=100

jaffab

Hi All,

Just found this forum and thread - wish I had found it earlier.

I was issued a ticket in the summer by Devere Parking Services. I rejected it directly to them (using Martins MSE template letter, so I have already provided my details) and they rejected my rejection. So I appealed to POPLA, on the basis that I had a valid parking permit (issued by the customer I was visiting) but it was displayed in my side window, and got a REJECTION back as shown below:

Whats my play - pay the £100 and make it go away, or let them take me to court?

Me (Appellant)
-v-
Devere Parking Services Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking chargenotice number 25095 arising out of
the presence at Discovery Court, Poole, on 14 August 2013, of a vehicle
with registration mark xxxxxxxx
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further actionby the operator, payment of the
£100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
operator.
1962263095 2 04 November 2013
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
given that the Appellant parked on site in a clear contravention of the terms
and conditions for parking.
These terms and conditions state that all vehicles must display a valid permit
clearly on the dashboard/windscreen.
It is the Appellant’s case that he was parked correctly. The Appellant claims
that the permit was displayed in the driver’s side window of his car. The
Appellant also claims that the signage on site is insufficient.
The Operator rejected these submissions.
The Operator has produced a wealth ofevidence, including photographs of
the signs on site to show their number, location and what information is
presented on them. These signs are numerous, large and clear as to the terms
and conditions for use of the site. Signs were also located in the vicinity of
where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked. Consequently, I must decide that
the Operator had taken reasonable steps to bring the terms and conditions to
the attention of the Appellant.
In note that the Appellant states that a valid permit was displayed in the
driver’s side window of his vehicle, however, the terms and conditions for
parking are clear that the permit must be displayed in the
windscreen/dashboard area of the car.
By failing to display a valid permit in this way, the Appellant breached the
terms and conditions for use of the site and is liable for this parking charge
notice.
Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.
Matthew Westaby
Assessor

bod1467

You're probably at the ignore stage now ... the POPLA finding is only binding on the PPC not the driver/keeper. If they DO initiate court action then come back here for advice.