POPLA Decisions

Computersaysno

Umkomaas wrote: »

Nonetheless, I think there has been at least one recorded upheld appeal on this thread where the adjudicator dismissed the Witness Statement as not being admissible.

I vaguely recollect this as well........or am I getting confused with PPrankster using an identically constructed expert statement that was rejected???

I would imagine that the assessor got a good slap for it from Mr Greenslade.

Again it shows the value of appealing on single issues...to try to get a form of 'precedent' established [albeit only for POPLA].

trisontana

Another loss for UKCPS. GPEOL:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83810&st=60

tospig

POPLA have decided on a point I didn't raise to them, but instead on one I raised to UKPC before receiving my POPLA code.

My appeal to POPLA (using Parking-Prankster's words regarding Witness Statements):

Appeal to UKPC Ltd Parking Charge Notice number: xxxxxxxxx
I am not liable for the charge as UKPC Ltd have not shown they have either:

1. Written authorisation of the landowner to pursue outstanding parking charges through the courts;
2. A contract with the landowner that bestows them (UKPC Ltd) with the authority to make a contract with a driver who has parked on the land.

UKPC Ltd must show their contract, which also must be BPA compliant to demonstrate that they:

1. Are allowed to pursue outstanding parking charges through the courts;
2. Have the authority to make a contract between themselves and the appellant.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004 the assessor ruled that a witness statement was not valid. This witness statement, based on the template provided by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator, concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. This is exactly analogous to the current case if the operator produces a witness statement regarding contract documents between the operator and the landowner; the alleged contract is a document which the operator could produce (if it exists) but chooses not to. I request therefore that POPLA is consistent in its processes and also rules any witness statement produced by the operator invalid.

POPLA'S Resposne:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxxxxxx, on 9 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

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
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.

It is the Appellant’s case that, in their original representations made to the Operator, the charge does not represent the loss suffered as a result of the vehicle being parked on the land. I note that the Appellant has not raised this issue in the Appeal to POPLA; however, the Operator has not provided a copy of their response to this original appeal, so I consider that the matter is still in dispute.

The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The Appellant has requested that the Operator show a loss of income. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The Operator has failed to address this issue.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.
I need not decide on any other issues.
Matthew Westaby
Assessor

Coupon-mad

I note that the Appellant has not raised this issue in the Appeal to POPLA; however, the Operator has not provided a copy of their response to this original appeal, so I consider that the matter is still in dispute.

Sidestepped the witness statement thing, good swerve by POPLA, playing the game well. Take a bow, Matthew Westaby for finding the needle in the haystack.

That's a new one we can quote POPLA on 'POPLA assessor Matthew Westaby considers that a matter is still in dispute' if any original appeal points have not been rebutted earlier.

:T:T

Computersaysno

So he actually went looking for GPEOL in the pre-POPLA paperwork!!!

My, how these assessors have developed easy 'closes'....now that their necks are on the block!!

tospig

For my next one (it won't be long) I'll avoid all mention of GPEOL either to UKPC or POPLA.

Coupon-mad

Yet another Parking Eye case won on 'no GPEOL':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79644&st=0&gopid=892727&#entry892727

Coupon-mad

And a case lost at John Lennon Airport as the poster didn't seek advice; he only needed the magic words of course, or to have not implied who was driving and gone for no rk liability but no, he tried talking about 'what happened':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85294

Oh dear. Never mind he can beat VCS if they try a small claim. Shame he's chucked away no rk liability though by talking about who was driving.

Coupon-mad

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85311

Yet another case won against ParkingEye, what a surprise...NOT!!


The appellant’s case is that in order to pursue liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the conditions set out in Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 must be complied with and the appellant states that the operator has failed to identify the creditor on the notice to keeper. The appellant states that the operator has failed to quantify their loss and stated that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and the parking charge notice itself fails to identify the specific breach that occurred and the ANPR has only recorded the entry and exit time. The appellant additionally argues that the operator does not have contractual authority and have failed to provide evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has requested evidence to show that the operator is entitled to recover parking charges from the driver of the vehicle and therefore although the operator states that they have the authority to do so, they have failed to provide a copy of the contract between themselves and the landowner or a witness statement confirming that they have the authority to recover parking charges.

As the operator has failed to show that they have the necessary authority, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that they had the authority to recover parking charges from motorists.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

trisontana

This time it's P4 Parking and another GPEOL:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85391&hl=