POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Well done Green Hopeful - any chance you could send me a pm with the decision date and case number? I won't use it on the open forum and don't need a name or car reg of course. It's just we are keeping a list of all PE no GPEOL cases, to help defendants v PE in court. It's a very long list!

Stroma

A complete waste of an appeal to popla purely on mitigation

Dear Sir/Madam

I received a parking ticket on 21st August but Ibelieve the ticket was wrongly issued and I would like to submit an appeal forthe following reasons:

Quite simply, the parking attendant got it wrong and I wasnot parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the fact that I did have avalid ticket on display (I have attached the ticket I purchased on the day as evidence) and cannot understand why I came back to the vehicle to find a PCN attached. The only thing I can think of is that the ticket may have been at anangle where it was hard to read but this seems unlikely. Perhaps if yourtickets had an adhesive backing that allowed them to be stuck to a window thisproblem would be resolved.

I should like add that I regularly park in this location forwork and as my fees are paid by my employer there is no reason why I would tryto exempt myself from the cost of buying a ticket.

I then went via the POPLA site and said I had displayed a valid parking ticket however it had moved when I shut the door and so was upside down. I maintained that it was still valid and pointed out that nowhere did it say that tickets had to be 'face up' on display so I had fulfilled the obligations as per the car park signage!

POPLAs answer

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 action by 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.



Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


A parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark

Xxxxxx for parking in a pay and display car park without visibly displaying a

valid pay and display voucher.

The operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the carpark are displayed on numerous signs located at the entrance and throughout the car park. One of the parking rules requires that ‘valid pay and display vouchers must be clearly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle,at all the times.’ The operator says that their photographic image show that the vehicle was parked with no pay and display voucher clearly visible within his vehicle windscreen on display. They have produced photographic evidence which illustrates this point and they have produced copies of the parking charge notice and their signage.

The appellant’s case is that the vehicle was not improperly parked. He states that he paid and displayed a valid parking voucher for the day. He says that the voucher had somehow moved (probably upon closing the car door) but it was still visible for inspection. He enclosed a copy the original appeal with a
copy of the parking voucher attached.

The operator rejected the representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because, they state a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking without visibly displaying a valid parking voucher. They state that it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that a payment is clearly
on display in the dashboard area prior to leaving the vehicle.

I note the appellant’s comments and I appreciate his situation, however I find that the onus is on the appellant to park in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking. Furthermore, purchasing a valid voucher does not
automatically cover his parking; it also has to be displayed clearly within the vehicle in order to be deemed valid. I find that the operator has taken reasonable steps on balance of probabilities and has provided sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the notice.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that on this particular occasion, by not visibly displaying a valid pay and display voucher, there occurred a breach of the car park conditions to which the appellant have deemed to have accepted when he decided to park his vehicle. Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

sodajazz

Appeal allowed against Parking eye..
Says parking eyes losses cannot be commercially justifiable
and they didn't produce any evidence of land owner or authority.
Whoop !
Will go scan the letter

trisontana

Another GPEOL loss for Parking Eye:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81554&st=20

markahoy

Just wanted to thank everyone here for assistance in my victory against Parking Eye. Appeal allowed on grounds of not GPEOL...although I submitted other grounds as well, this was the only one they needed to take into account.

Coupon-mad

Do any PPC drop it because of GPEOL at 1st complaint.

Yes is the answer, plenty do! ParkingEye should do more often as it would save them money. I guess they bank on people missing the POPLA deadline or not bothering to see it to second stage at all - which does happen. Then PE pounce because they use big guns in small claims which scares many into coughing up and convinces many a judge.

markahoy wrote: »

Just wanted to thank everyone here for assistance in my victory against Parking Eye. Appeal allowed on grounds of not GPEOL...although I submitted other grounds as well, this was the only one they needed to take into account.

Well done, markahoy:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4751357

Nice result.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes is the answer, plenty do! ParkingEye should do more often as it would save them money. I guess they bank on people missing the POPLA deadline or not bothering to see it to second stage at all - which does happen. Then PE pounce because they use big guns in small claims which scares many into coughing up and convinces many a judge.





Well done, markahoy:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4751357

Nice result.

Except some of their 'big guns' think they're working for Private Eye (having only read the brief minutes before entering the courtroom). If I was Rachel, I'd be asking for a refund on that bozo's fee :cool:.

Judge Jenkins was one judge not so convinced

And well done, markahoy, from me too.

trisontana

Now it's ANPR's turn to lose a GPOL appeal:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82513&st=40&start=40

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

Now it's ANPR's turn to lose a GPOL appeal:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82513&st=40&start=40

ANPR should lose just on the basis they are still breathing

Stroma

This is first I've seen, a genuine pre-estimate of loss defence losses at popla

Shinkansen wrote: »

Well this is a weird one... just got the decision back from POPLA and apparently Nap*r including the Mr Yao case, along with a few sentences about how much time each appeal costs them in wages, was sufficient evidence to suggest the £90 "fine" is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Genuinely confused about this one.

I worded the appeal extraordinarily well, referenced all relevant case laws (which seem to have been overlooked completely), made about 5 points with GPEoL being the main bullet but apparently, weirdly, they decided no. At no point did I even MENTION signage. I explicitly stated that operational costs cannot be included as part of a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I have seen countless other POPLA decisions where completely the opposite has been stated regarding GPEoL and in fact I believe even by the same assessor?

Any further advice? Ignore?

- - - - - -

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx car park, on xxxxxx 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

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 action by the operator, payment of the £90 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xxxxxxx 2013 at xxxxxx car park, 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’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid parking ticket despite signage at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so. There is photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also photographic evidence to support that at the time that the parking charge notice was issued the appellant’s vehicle was not displaying a valid ticket.

It is the appellant’s case that the parking charge notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has also questioned the operator’s contract with the landowner.

In consideration of all of the evidence before me, I find that there is clear evidence to support that at the time that the parking charge notice was issued, the appellant’s vehicle was not displaying a valid ticket. The appellant was therefore in breach of the parking terms and conditions. There was clear and adequate signage at the parking site informing motorists of the parking terms and conditions. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they comply with all terms and conditions of parking.

The operator has submitted a witness statement to rebut the appellant’s submission that the operator has no contract with the landowner. This shows that the operator does hold the authority to issue the parking charge notice. I accept this evidence.

In response to the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has made several submissions which show the consequential losses arising from the appellant’s breach. The operator has submitted that the parking charge notice represents costs including the DVLA fee, approximately 3 hours of staff time spent on the case file, costs incurred in processing the case and the costs of legal advice. I find that the operator on this occasion has shown that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal is refused.

Farah Ahmad

Assessor