POPLA Decisions

trisontana

Two more Parking Eye GPOL losses:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86395&st=0&gopid=906954&#entry906954

Blah_blah

Won my case against MET! In fact they didn't offer any evidence, but thanks to the people on here I think I had a good case even if they had - gpeol, poor signage, asked them to produce their contract and others. They probably decided it wasn't worth the effort if I was going to win anyway on gpeol.

Thanks again and keep up the good work.

trisontana

This from a FB page which has started a campaign against PE. Yet another GPOL loss for them:-

Another success against Parking Eye.
In July this year I parked in the Fistral Beach car park in Newquay. Shortly after I got home I received a parking charge notice for £100 from Parking Eye. I appealed to PE on 2 grounds - that the charge was not a genuine pre estimate of loss and that I was with the grace period of 20 minutes shown on the signage. PE rejected my appeal saying that I had only made generic points!
POPLA have now allowed my appeal saying, " The Appellant made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss." The assessors decision goes on to say, "The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in managing the car park, however, this is a general list of operational costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking."

4consumerrights

It's not been a very good day for Parking Eye - another loss for them.

Tadine's thread - v Parking Eye appeal allowed again no GPEOL

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=64131389&posted=1#post64131389

AoD

Just had the first POPLA result in from one of the neighbours I am helping. It was against PCM and the appeal was based on the usual no GPEOL, no valid contract (it was their own parking space) and an invalid rejection letter.

And the winner this time was... unfortunately we never got a chance to find out as PCM cancelled the charge after the POPLA appeal was submitted!!

Tyke1601

Here is the decision and reasoning from POPLA:

[redacted] (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at The Rishworth Retail Park in Dewsbury, 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking chare notice [redacted] arising out of the presence at Rishworth Retail Park on [date readacted] of a vehicle with registration mark [redacted] for remaining at the car park for longer than authorised.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle remained at the car park for longer than authorised and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.

The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The signage produced by the Operator states that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £100 being issued. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in managing the car park, however, this is a general list of operational costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

The Operator has stated that there is a commercial justification for the parking charge and they have listed general business costs, however, this does not amount to commercial justification.

I have looked at all the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Nozir Uddin
Assessor


Parking Charge Notices are turning out to be the new PPI, when will these companies learn and when are the authorities going to shut them down. Every single penalty paid by the unsuspecting public should be returned in full with interst.

Stroma

Is that 6 losses for Parking Eye today ? What a lovely day for common sense lol

Umkomaas

Stroma wrote: »

Is that 6 losses for Parking Eye today ? What a lovely day for common sense lol

Must be not far from 100-Nil. Who's going to be number 100?

You'd have thought a fully trained, fully qualified, professional solicitor would be able to outsmart a bunch of ramshackle keyboard warriors!

I wonder who did the interview? . Could Capita be looking closely at this performance? Is Jobseekers' Allowance still available?

trisontana

I have said it before on here. Now that PE have been told time-after-time by both POPLA adjudicators and a judge that their GPOL sums just don't add up, then why are they still trying to con money off people using the same argument. Doesn't that amount to demanding money under false pretenses?

hoohoo

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86412

VCS lose at liverpool airport on gpeol

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX arising
out of the presence at John Lennon Airport, on XX July 2013, of a
vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX.
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
On XX July 2013, the Operator observed the Appellant’s vehicle on the private
land at John Lennon Airport, via the mobile CCTV traffic enforcement
cameras. The Operator’s case is that the vehicle was ‘stopped on a roadway
where stopping is prohibited’ from X.15am until X.18am, in breach of the
displayed terms and conditions. Therefore, the Operator submits that the
parking charge notice was correctly issued.
The Appellant concedes that the vehicle was temporally stopped at the side
of an access road. A summary of the Appellant’s case that the vehicle was
not causing an obstruction; there was no contract between the driver of the
vehicle and the Operator; and there was inadequate signage on the land,
and therefore, the driver did not see or absorb, the signs indicating the
stopping/parking restrictions. The Appellant made further representations
that the amount of the parking charge notice does not represent a genuine
pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and thus, it is not enforceable.
Once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine preestimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some evidence to tip
the balance in its favour.
The signage produced states “strictly no parking, stopping or waiting or
double yellow lines, red route zones, orroadways at any time”, and a failure
to comply would result in an automatic parking charge notice. 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 has produced a paragraph which it states that the amount of
the parking charge notice is ‘in line with the British Parking Associations Code
of Practice for Parking Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Private
Car Parks’. However, the Operator has not shown that the amount of the
charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss to them,
consequential to the driver’s parking 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