POPLA Decisions

trisontana

The above is yet another Parking Eye appeal. On my reckoning that now makes it Motorists 70 and PE 0.

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

This rather strange one has just popped up on PePiPoo:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86136&hl=

My POPLA appeal against CEL was successful.

The reasons POPLA gave were:

1) Parking ticket not issued within 14 days
2) Ticket can only be issued to the driver (not owner). CEL have not proven the defendant was the driver.

That one was a 'Broadsword Special' from June /July when CEL were still citing POFA 2012 on their late NTKs. Here's the OP's original thread from June:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80570

If that decision was only just made, the delay is surprising. It took POPLA far too long to make an easy decision!

Coupon-mad

Have we seen this one here yet, from NJH1?


PPS beaten by a nicely-worded POPLA appeal, and the winning point was...no GPEOL!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4802878


"Considering carefully all the evidence before me, although the operator contends that the charge is a contractual term, the wording of the signage states ‘failure to comply with any of these conditions may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice.’ It is clear from this wording that the amount will only be sought in the event that the appellant is parked in breach of one of the terms listed on the signage and therefore the charge would appear to represent liquidated damages, which is compensation, agreed in advance; this means that the breach should represent the actual loss caused.

The operator has failed to reference the loss incurred in this case and therefore I have no evidence to dispute the appellant’s claim that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred as a result of failing to display a pay and display ticket. As a result of this, I need not decide the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed".

Coupon-mad

And this one from brynglas which is proof that a very weak POPLA appeal (prior to posting here), followed swiftly by an email with no GPEOL and other points added for POPLA, can turn the decision:




https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4783135


VINCI LOST OF COURSE, ON 'NO GPEOL' BUT ONLY DUE TO AN EMAIL ADDED BY THE APPELLANT:


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. Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Parked without displaying valid payment’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking. The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly displayed.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) He purchased a valid ticket which may have blown over so that it was no longer displayed.
b) The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
c) The Operator does not have a contract permitting it to enter into parking contracts in relation to this land.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The
Operator has not addressed this submission. The Operator does not dispute that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some
explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour. The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this justification. The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant’s failure to display his ticket. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a large proportion of the ‘losses’ submitted are not, in fact, losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach, but general operational costs. The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith. Consequently, I am not minded to find that this charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

bargepole

Another CEL loss, this time they couldn't pursue the RK under PoFA, so tried to pursue the driver. However as they had no idea who was driving, they wasted their £27:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising
out of the presence at Car Park at Severn Park, Bridgnorth, on 8 June 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark AB12CDE.

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 the Operator has failed to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Appellant states that the Operator has not issued the notice to keeper within the requisite time frame. The Operator has accepted that this is the case.

The Operator has stated that they are now pursuing the parking charge notice against the driver of the vehicle. The onus is on the Operator to show who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach. The Appellant has not admitted to being the driver.
As the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 notice to keeper, and failed to show who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach, I must allow the appeal.

Matthew Westaby
Assessor

BrightonandHove

How business minded are the people running CEL ? You would think the moment they realised the NtK wasn't compliant they would cancel the invoice !

Parking-Prankster

BrightonandHove wrote: »

How business minded are the people running CEL ? You would think the moment they realised the NtK wasn't compliant they would cancel the invoice !

Perhaps they don't follow this thread!

Parking-Prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/parkingeye-target-slow-moving.html


11 December 2013
Reference 6062483014
[redacted] (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at The Range in Barrow-in-Furness, on 5 July 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark [redacted].


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, giving the reason as: ‘By remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state that parking is only permitted during store hours.


It is the Appellant’s case that he parked in order to use one of the shops located on site. Having got out of his vehicle and approached the store, he found that it was closed and so returned to his vehicle and left the site. The Appellant submits that, as he is 82, this took him longer than usual.


The Operator has produced evidence that the Appellant remained in the car park for 11 minutes.


What constitutes being parked is a question of fact which will depend on the circumstances of each case and an appropriate grace period must be granted in order to give drivers opportunity to read the terms of parking and decide whether or not to park. In this case the signs produced by the Operator are not sufficient to indicate to motorists before entering the car park that parking is not permitted outside certain hours, as I am not minded to accept that the text is large enough to be read from a moving vehicle. In this case, the car park does seem to be fairly large, and certain spaces are a long distance from the shops and the nearest sign. Given the Appellant’s age, and the length of his stay, only 11 minutes, I am minded on this occasion to accept his evidence that he left the car park as soon as reasonably possible after becoming aware that he could not park.


Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

Parking-Prankster

6062483098 - Motorist v ParkingEye

Appeal allowed - GPEOL
11 Dec 2013

One of those stupid PDF files that doesn't allow copy and paste for some reason.


Salient points - motorist only said charge was disproportionate - apparently that's all that is needed these days for the assessor to suddenly spot the GPEOL elephant in the room.


Perhaps POPLA are fed up with the ParkingEye 50 page blizzard. Or perhaps they are reacting to the BPA ltd threat to terminate the contract.

PeterPoorParker

Another victory, details:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64063303&postcount=32