POPLA Decisions

yogi69

So after winning my POPLA appeal in September for a ticket I got in May, I had parking collection services and debt recovery plus chasing me for £150 that I didnt owe.

Today I got a letter from debt recovery plus saying their client Park Direct never told them I had appealed to POPLA and won. Therefore they are really sorry and wont be contacting me in regards to this matter again.

Finally, 8 months on, I can finally throw these bloody letters away (will scan the last one in case)

By the way, forget BPA, they dont/wont do anything, so dont waste your time with them.

thanks for the advice given to me on this forum.

ossie48

Just got my result through and another victory (v PE) , thanks for all of the advice :beer:

At 13:00, on xxxxxx, a CCTV automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering the Aldi Wallisdown Roadcar park in Bournemouth.
The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by remaining at the car park for longer than the stay authorised or without authorisation.
The Appellant made representations stating their case. The Appellant raised a number of points and one of them was that there is no genuine pre-estimateof loss and that the charge is punitive.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the loss caused by the alleged breach. Clearly, it is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge is not compensatory in nature.The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for “failure to comply”. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator submits that the charge is in fact a genuine pre-estimate of loss,and further submits that the charge is justified commercially and so need no tin any case be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Firstly, I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the Appellant. It seems that the courts have accepted a third category of liquidated damages, a sum which is commercially justified – in cases where the sum is neither a penalty nor is it strictly a genuine pre estimate of loss – where the Operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or
the loss that might reasonably be incurred, by the breach. However, I do notaccept the Operator’s submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality
amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their carpark management services is commercially justified. The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot ofitself amount to commercial justification.

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. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a substantial proportion of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses 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 Appellant’s conduct.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed

nicechap

Received today, over 14 months since the actual incident, I've parked there countless times since and on occasion stayed over the 2 hours when helping my dad shop.

I wonder if my registration is now on a PE don't bother wasting a stamp list?

As well as PE taking 8 months to send a POPLA code, POPLA themselves took over 4 months to conclude GPEL.


*************************************************

21 November 2013

Reference 6062053091 always quote in any communication with POPLA

Nicechap (Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 420714/178070 arising out of the presence at East of England Co-op Rosehill/ Aldi Car Park, on 4 October 2012, of a vehicle with registration mark (POPLA recorded wrong registration).

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.

6062053091 2 21 November 2013

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 4 October 2012, the Operator observed a red Citroen C8 with the vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX parked on the private land at East of England Co-op Rosehill/ Aldi Car Park, via the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The Operator’s case is that the vehicle remained on the land 33 minutes in excess of the maximum 2 hours authorised parking duration, in breach of the displayed terms and conditions; and therefore, the parking charge notice was correctly issued.

The Appellant initial made representations to the Operator that he was not liable for the parking charge; however, I note he did not offer any details as to how this was the case. The Operator responded advising that liability for parking charges lies primarily with the driver. However, in certain circumstances under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the registered keeper of a vehicle may be held liable for parking charges incurred by the driver of the vehicle. The Appellant again disputed the issue of the charge.

I note with great concern that the Operator requested evidence from the Appellant in November 2012. However, no further contact was made until July 2013, when the Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations in July 2013. I note the Appellant’s submission regarding this. However, I am not able to consider this breach of the Operator’s Code of Practice as a ground to allow this appeal; this breach is a matter for the British Parking Association.

The Appellant has made a further submission that the amount of the parking charge does not reflect the actual loss incurred by the Operator, as a result of his vehicle remaining on the land for longer than permitted. Therefore, it is not enforceable.

The Operator has produced an image of the signage which states that “failure to comply with the terms of parking will result in a parking charge of £70”. This wording seems to indicate 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.

6062053091 3 21 November 2013

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 over- stay on the land. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.

Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

I need not decide on any further issues.

Harpreet Bansal
Assessor

cxxr

Guys - Another Win! Thanks to all the forum memers who helped me on this especially Coupon-Mad who helped massivly with the POPLA Appeal.

Short and sweet:

13 December 2013
Reference [xxx]

[xxx] (Appellant)
-v-
LCP Parking Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number [xxx] arising
out of the presence at Harlesden Plaza Car Park, on September 14
2013, of a vehicle with registration mark [xxx].
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

At 15:15, on September 14 2013, a CCTV automatic number plate recognition
(ANPR) system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering the Harlesden Plaza
car park.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by not making a valid payment.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. The Appellant raised a
number of points and one of them was that the genuine pre-estimate of loss
must be based upon losses flowing from the breach of the parking terms. He
further states that in this instance there was no such loss and no breach at all.
The Operator has produced a list which they state indicates their pre-estimate
of loss occurring from this matter. The gesture of goodwill is a separate gesture
by the Operator rather than relating to the charge itself. The amount put
forward that could amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, does not
amount to a substantial proportion of even the reduced charge.
Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate
of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.


Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

sue67

Massive thanks to all that supply info on this site and parking cowboys.
I had made the initial mistake of appealing to parking eye using mitigating circumstances and telling them that I was the driver! I then came here and read what I should have done! Thank you all

Reference xxxxxxxxx

Sue67 (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx
arising out of the presence at Riverside Retail Park, on x August 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
At 12:37 on the X August 2013, a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx was
recorded by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera entering
the car park at Riverside Retail Park. After 2 hours and 33 minutes, at 15:11,
the same vehicle was recorded by the ANPR camera exiting the car park.
It is the Operator’s case that the terms and conditions of parking state that
this is a 2 hour maximum free stay car park for customers only. As the
Appellant had stayed for longer than the maximum stay allowed, the
Operator submits the parking charge was correctly issued.
The Appellant has raised several points in the appeal; however I will only deal
with the point on which I am allowing this appeal on. The Appellant has
stated that the charge sought is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is the
Appellant’s case that the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred.
The Operator submits that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but
that in any event the charge is commercially justified.
The wording of the signage on site seems to indicate that the charge
represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the
charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator is required to show that the losses stated are directly related to
the Appellant staying in the car park for longer than the maximum stay
allowed. In this case, the Operator has stated that the charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of the loss as they incur ‘significant costs in managing this car
park to ensure that motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions.’
The Operator has stated that the costs include the erection and
maintenance of site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the
Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems, employment of office based
administrative staff, membership fees, and general costs including stationary
and postage. In this case, the justification appears to be on the basis of
general operating costs rather than addressing the loss actually caused as a
result of staying in the car park for longer than the stay allowed.
Although the Operator has stated that the charge is commercially justified,
the amount sought for the breach of the terms and conditions cannot be the
entire source of their income and must be loss based rather than based on
profit in order to amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I do not accept
the Operator’s submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park


management services is commercially justified. The whole business model of
an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself
amount to commercial justification.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate
of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. I need not decide any other issues
raised.
Izla Rhawi
Assessor

Guys_Dad

Sue,

I looked back to see your threads on here and then discovered that you hadn't started one and that you did your POPLA appeal all from what you read on other threads (unless you used a different login).

Congratulations for doing this yourself and as a reasonably regular contributor, it was good to see that the advice posted in this forum is being used as a reference library for people to use for their own appeals without further need to ask additional info.

Very well done.

trisontana

Another loss for Trev. Both GPOL and signage:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?398948-ANPR-Ltd-Parking-Charge-notice/page2

Hi folks, just to let you all know that I got response from POPLA today by email saying that my appeal had been UPHELD. WooHoo. Who says Friday 13th is a bad luck day......well maybe for ANPR. What a bunch of shysters. POPLA says their signs weren't clearly visible to cars entering the car park and that also, they hadn't demonstrated that there was a genuine pre-estimate of loss for Liquidated damages or that there were indeed any losses as a result of parking there. I think a victory for ordinary people and common sense.

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

Another loss for Trev. Both GPOL and signage:-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?398948-ANPR-Ltd-Parking-Charge-notice/page2

Hi folks, just to let you all know that I got response from POPLA today by email saying that my appeal had been UPHELD. WooHoo. Who says Friday 13th is a bad luck day......well maybe for ANPR. What a bunch of shysters. POPLA says their signs weren't clearly visible to cars entering the car park and that also, they hadn't demonstrated that there was a genuine pre-estimate of loss for Liquidated damages or that there were indeed any losses as a result of parking there. I think a victory for ordinary people and common sense.

But ANPR Ltd do at least say they provide a '95% deterrent'.

Bad luck Trev, that's £27 less in your retirement fund :rotfl:

trisontana

Yet another GPOL loss for Parking Eye:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86209&hl=

loulix45

And another! My appeal was allowed yesterday against PE too!