POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Devere Parking Services

.

Oh dear. Oh dear, couldn't have lost to a worse bunch! They are litigious but surely you would have a chance in court as long as it's not Bournemouth/Poole (Google and read forum results re Devere small claims cases to learn why...although one was won last month):

''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.''

RIDICULOUS! but you'd need a much better defence in court than your appeal for POPLA. Start a new thread when you get your court papers.

nigelbb

This is just the sort of ridiculous POPLA decision that beggars belief. The whole idea of the permit is to ensure only authorised vehicles are parked. There is no argument that there was a valid permit or that the vehicle was authorised to be parked. I suspect that a proper court would have thrown this out as entirely frivolous. This is like those other stupid POPLA decisions where a motorist is parked in their allocated bay in the car park of an apartment block but the permit has fallen down.

The most idiotic fact about this decision is that had the appeal been on the basis that the £100 was a penalty & not a genuine pre-estimate of loss then it would have been upheld & Matthew Westaby & all the other POPLA assessors are perfectly aware of that.

Computersaysno

So should oput advice be...

1. Appeal to PPC - doesn't really matter too much what you say.

2. Appeal to POPLA, one liner saying 'not GPEOL'.

Job done

nigelbb

Computersaysno wrote: »

So should oput advice be...

1. Appeal to PPC - doesn't really matter too much what you say.

2. Appeal to POPLA, one liner saying 'not GPEOL'.

Job done

Provided that the PPC alleges breach of a contract for parking & not trespass or an agreed charge for parking e.g. £100 to park in front of a fire exit.

The vast majority of PPCs (including PE) do allege that the charge is for a breach of contract so appealing on 'not GPEOL' is fine but motorists need to be careful that they are not caught out in other circumstances.

Fergie76

Could try complaining to London Councils or whoever it is that runs POPLA.

Guys_Dad

jaffab- would you mind posting your original post as a new thread as I am sure you will be getting excellent advice and it deserves its own thread. I have a point that might help, so when you open the thread, I will add it.

Thanks.

moosty_moo

Hi Forum Gurus,

I've just won my POPLA appeal. Here's my thread:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4768091

It was against UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd for Dropping off/ picking up in a restricted area at Newcastle Airport.

Odd thing is that even though I asked them to consider point 1, they have gone for the GPEOL.

Many thanks to all Forum Gurus. As promissed a donation has been nade to Macmillan as follows:
Thank you for your donation of £30 in celebration of your friend MSE Parking Forum Gurus's help to cancel parking charge

Many thanks for all of your help.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 14:55 on the 7th August 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to an
Audi with registration mark XXX at Newcastle International Airport for
dropping off/picking up in a restricted area.
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle was dropping off in a
restricted area, contrary to the parking restrictions on the signage and
therefore the appellant was in breach of the terms and conditions.
The appellant’s case is that the operator has failed to comply with Paragraph
9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the charge is
not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has additionally states that
the keeper is not liable as the Protection of Freedoms Act does not apply, the
signage is poor and the creditor has not been identified on the notice to
keeper. The operator also questions the authority of the operator to issue
parking charges and states that the land was not private land.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, although I appreciate that
the signage is clear and clearly indicates the terms and conditions for
parking, the appellant has raised the issue of whether the parking charge is a
genuine pre-estimate of loss. The charge appears to represent liquidated
damages, which is compensation, agreed in advance; this means that the
breach should represent the actual loss caused. The operator has referenced
the charge and states that they incur significant costs in managing the car
park and therefore the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. The operator
has failed to provide a breakdown of the specific costs incurred and
therefore I have no evidence to refute the appellant’s claim that the charge
is not a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred as a result of stopping where
stopping is prohibited. As a result of this, I am not required to address the
other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

Computersaysno

moosty_moo wrote: »

It was against UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd for Dropping off/ picking up in a restricted area at Newcastle Airport.

Odd thing is that even though I asked them to consider point 1, they have gone for the GPEOL.

Not odd at all.

POPLA assessors are aware that they will be out of a job if they don't get cases sorted very quickly, so they look for the magic phrase 'GPEOL' and then they can uphold the appeal and move on to the next one.

POPLA assessors can not allow themselves to be interested in the finer points of claims...they are numbers driven.

bod1467

moosty_moo wrote: »

Thank you for your donation of £30 in celebration of your friend MSE Parking Forum Gurus's help to cancel parking charge

Loving the (I hope) deliberate misuse of the apostrophe.

trisontana

Now this:-
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63701298&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_medium=Email&utm_term=05-Nov-13

Yet another loss for poor old Trev.