POPLA Decisions

hoohoo

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84077

UKCPS lose at POPLA. Further details apparently available after christmas.

hoohoo

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79793

APCOA lose at POPLA on GPEOL
Luton Airport

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, although I appreciate that
the signage is clear and clearly indicates the terms and conditions for
parking, the appellant has raised the issue of whether the parking charge is a
genuine pre-estimate of loss. The signage states that ‘parking enforcement
notices may be issued for breaches of the restrictions, including but not
limited to…dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area.’
This would indicate that the charge represents 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 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
picking up/dropping off outside of a designated area. As a result of this, I am
not required to address the other issues raised by the appellant.

4consumerrights

Umkomaas wrote: »

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

Perhaps we should mock up a special certificate for the winner no 100

CONGRATUALATIONS

APPELLANT..
V
PARKING EYE

This certificate is awarded to...................

as you are the 100th person to have their appeal allowed at POPLA against Parking Eye reported on MSE forum.

Stroma

The 100th reported here, but I would guess that figure is a lot higher

rubbish_at_usernames

Another win here I didn't post much about it but I did use the templates from this forum so thank you for being here



The Appellant submits that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
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 the Appellant staying in the car park for longer than the maximum 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.

Coupon-mad

Well done, and it was Parking Eye wasn't it of course!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4779917

Not 'confuzzled' any more, a great example of how forum-led appeals help newbies to win.

ke92

Having used one of the template on here I am happy to report

Decision : Allowed
Operator : Armtrac

The Operator submits that the parking charge notice was issued for parking in a no parking area. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state that,

It is the Appellant’s case, amongst other things, that the Operator has no legal authority over the land in question to issue or pursue parking charge notices.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is 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 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.

Redx

one from me now too, another no gpeol win against excel

this is in reply to the following thread

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4827711

xx November 2013
Reference xxxxxxxxxx
(Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Ashton Retail Park, Ashton-under-Lyne, on ** July 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
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, amongst other things, the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by the landowner.
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 Appellant has requested that the Operator show a loss of income. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.
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 the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs, including the cost of erecting site signage and the cost of membership of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. However, some of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.
I need not decide on any other issues.
Matthew Westaby
Assessor

Parking-Prankster

JAS lose on gpeol


[redacted] (Appellant)
-v-
JAS Parking Solutions (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at Staples and Carphone Warehouse, on 25 October 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


On 25 October 2013 at Staples and Carphone Warehouse, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.


It is the operator’s case that the appellant parked the vehicle at the parking site and then left the parking site. There is evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also evidence to support that the appellant’s vehicle was parked 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 burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although the operator has produced a breakdown of costs incurred, these do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I find that a large proportion of the costs listed by the operator do not stem directly from the alleged breach and therefore cannot be included in the breakdown of costs provided by the operator to establish a genuine preestimate
of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged
the burden.


In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


Farah Ahmad
Assessor

Parking-Prankster

ParkingEye lose because of....GPEOL



Running total on this list
92 losses
86 gpeol
4 no authority
1 signage
1 grace period


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

The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at St Helens Retail Park, on 24 May 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.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


On 24 May 2013, at St Helens Retail Park, the Appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.


It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle overstayed the
maximum time allowed of 2 hours at the parking site. There is evidence to support that there was adequate signage erected at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also evidence from the Operator’s automatic number plate recognition system which shows the Appellant’s vehicle, registration number [redacted], enter the site at [redacted] and exit at [redacted], a total stay of 2 hours and 16 minutes.


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 indicates that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


The burden is on the Operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although the Operator has produced a breakdown of costs incurred in managing the parking site, 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.


The Operator states that they have incurred the costs of, amongst other things, the erection and maintenance of signage in the site. However these costs were not incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would have been incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of the parking site. I am therefore not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the amount for the parking charge notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


Farah Ahmad
Assessor