POPLA Decisions

surfboy1

So they are saying that one parking contravention causes 3 hours of staff time, and legal advice?
Each and every single parking contravention causes that?
I wonder how many parking contraventions they get through on a daily basis and how many staff they have to give up the 3 hours for every one?
And F Ahmad believed that ?? How foolish!

Umkomaas

This seems to be a new Assessor - a search on MSE doesn't bring up any other references to this person.

I think the Lead Assessor should be required to review this decision, as all others based on GPEOL point in the opposite direction.

Questions should be asked about the Assessor's time in post and the amount and content of training received.

This makes a mockery of POPLA's consistency of approach. Motorists deserve a far better impartial assessment of their appeals.

Stroma

I would put money on the scammers like parking eye putting this decision in all appeals for genuine pre-estimate of loss. Actually I'm not surprised by this decision as it appears that the bpa is putting pressure on popla in this

Redx

this one about HIGHVIEW shows the opposite happened and that GPEOL was correct on similar cost submissions (not wages or legal fees though)

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4834540

Coupon-mad

Another new one, PikaPorker won at POPLA v ParkingEye, on GPEOL:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4689541

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. 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?

And this was Nap.i.e.r which sometimes owns their car parks and they word their signage differently. It's been pointed out before and it took a lot of thinking about the wording when I helped LowEndTheory beat Nap.i.e.r at POPLA. I still wasn't sure it would win but it did (already reported in this thread weeks ago).

You can't rely on sending the usual format to them nor to Comb/Parking/Sols, this was a big mistake as Nap.i.e.r sue people.

I did actually tell the OP this in post #4 in October and yet they sent a POPLA appeal off without any help from the forum:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4784182

Hate to say 'I told you so' when someone will probably end up paying a PPC as a result of this mistake. It's an example of how not to do a POPLA appeal.

Parking-Prankster

This is a case I helped with, reported fully here.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/vehicle-control-systems-bet-company.html


It is important because VCS submitted a detailed cost breakdown. Having done this, and lost, they have painted themselves into a corner. If they try and change their calculations then one or other of the calculations will be exposed as false. Thus, all of their tickets are now unenforceable.


The appellant made representations stating her case. She raised a number of points and one of them was that the amount charged was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The parking charge appears to be a sum for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss any breach may cause. The Appellant has requested that the Operator submit a full breakdown of their charges to show their pre-estimate of loss calculation. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate as they incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with their terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs including a write off allowance.

The Operator has produced a list of costs. However a substantial proportion of these appears to be general operating costs and not loss consequential to the Appellant's breach. The aim of damages for breach of contract is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Accordingly, the operator cannot include in its pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses but the costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective of the Appellants conduct.

I need not decide any other issues

bargepole

You have to wonder what they are smoking in Excel/VCS's offices in Sheffield, when it comes to court or tribunal proceedings they manage to get it spectacularly wrong nearly every time.

It's still 25 days until Christmas, but their goose is already well and truly cooked.

salmosalaris

Stroma wrote: »

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

Would like to see that loss breakdown .
The costs referred to all appear to occur after a motorist appeals . However most charges are paid without appeal and the same amounts are requested .
In other words should one decide to pay the ticket initially ,for it to be a genuine pre estimate of loss, all these supposed costs that that are incurred subsequent to appealing possibly need to be deducted .
It rather suggests that the discount for early payment should be considerably larger than 40% . Foot meet bullet .

trisontana

Yet another loss fro Trev:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?405420-ANPR-Again!/page2

The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as their signs provide a 100% deterrent rate and failure to provide this deterrent amounts to a breach of contract between themselves and the landowner, enabling them to seek liquidated damages from the driver/keeper of the vehicle that caused the breach.
Having studied the Operator’s submissions, I cannot, on what little information is provided, decide that they have shown that the charge does in fact represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.
I need not decide on any other issues.

Matthew Westaby
Assessor

If I was Trev I would ask for my money back from the sign maker because those signs aren't working.

Coupon-mad

Here we have a win against CP Plus at Strensham Roadchef Services on the M5:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4783233

Superscrooge's heinous crime was to fall asleep in the car at the Services:


''I've just got my popla appeal result back and my appeal has been allowed which is excellent news.

Until it happened to me I had no idea that Roadchef fined their customers £90 if they remained on the motorway service area more than two hours. I did email Simon Turl, CEO Roadchef as suggested in an earlier post but Roadchef were only willing to reduce the fine to £17 which I wasn't prepared to pay.

The crucial part of the popla assessors decision is below. CP PLUS:

'The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the
land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking
charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.
Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor'

I would like to thank Umkomaas and Coupon-mad for their excellent advice in helping me draft my appeal.''