POPLA Decisions

bod1467

Another win vs Highview.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64108325#Comment_64108325

No Authority, even though No GPEoL was in the appeal.

4consumerrights

I received exactly the same response as per KIFL's post above by Chris Adamson for an appeal lodged the 27th SEPTEMBER

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
[EMAIL="enquiries@popla.org.uk"]enquiries@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL]
www.popla.org.uk
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

18 December 2013
Reference XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
always quote in any communication with POPLA

XXXXXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxxx
arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration
mark xxxxxxxxxxx
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 Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any
evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any
evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

Coupon-mad

Excel at the Peel Centre beaten again - by jamummy - on no GPEOL:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4849631


...edited to allow jamummy to show the details in post #704 below. Well done jamummy!!

4consumerrights

With GPEOL winning all the time now it looks like the PPCs are trying new tactics:

The Operator gave examples of such costs which includes a comparatively large ‘write-off allowance’.

and not forgetting Parking Eye are attempting their commercial justifcation as an excuse.

Are they being coached in this.

Nigel Williams sits on the board of directors at the BPA and also runs his company Parking Matters under what they do list:

Negotiation & dispute mediation

http://parkingmatters.com/what-we-do


company check: http://companycheck.co.uk/director/908324586

Parking-Prankster

CEL bail out of POPLA as well as court cases!


Reference: 1413023507


[redacted] (Appellant)
-v-
Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)


The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number , issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark [redacted].


Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.


You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator

Redx

PE lose yet another POPLA case on "not a gpeol"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4773156

4consumerrights

Above relates to Softmachines appeal - no surprise no GPEOL won despite Parking Eye's attempts again at commercial justification!

jamummy

Another win against Excel, Peel Centre Stockport.

[redacted] (Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at Peel Centre in Stockport, on [redacted], 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.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a [redacted] with the registration mark [redacted] was recorded entering the said car park at [redacted] and exiting at [redacted], recording a total stay of [redacted] minutes in a pay and display car park
without paying for parking.

It is the Appellant’s case that she is not liable for the parking charge sought as the charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by her breach. The Appellant adds that the Operator have no legal capacity to
issue and enforce parking charge notice’s and the signage at site is non compliant with the BPA code of conduct.

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 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 of loss as they incur significant costs in managing this car park in order to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs which includes a comparatively large ‘write-off allowance’.

I therefore find that a substantial proportion of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. Consequently, I cannot decide that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

trisontana

Another PE contract loss when they have tried to cite the "Fairlie v Fenton"case:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4708525


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 submits that the Operator is not the landowner and that they have not shown any evidence that they have the authority from the landowner to enter into a contract with a driver of the vehicle parking in the carpark.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itis not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement.

This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the and-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.

The Operator has also submitted that according to the case of Fairlie v Fenton, the Operator has the right to enforce the contract in its own right. I must find that this does not address the Appellant’s submission that the Operator does not have the right to offer a contract at all.

Taking together all of the evidence before me, 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.

6062813071 3 13 December 2013

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Izla Rhawi

Assessor

The_Deep

It's good to know that 140 year old contracts on the buying and selling of cotton have little bearing on the extortion of money by unscrupulous con men from the vulnerable.