POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

Hahahaha, just read out the first appeal about the zombie apocalypse and nominating himself as in line for a prize as 'customer of the month', to my kids!

:rotfl:

Parking-Prankster

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

Highview must get rather annoyed lol

They will be even more annoyed if they don't whack in a correct map of the car park to POPLA in time for my next appeal, estimated to be adjudicated in the next 7 days.

Umkomaas wrote: »

Just as an aside - is the PPC's written description of you as 'deceitful' libellous?

I have to admit I once told my mother I was late home from school because I missed the bus, whereas actually I was put in detention for climbing on the school roof.

Therefore I may have difficulty arguing I have never been deceitful.

:-)

ShivyDevon_2

Successful Popla Decision received y'day

The Full result below:

(Appellant)
-v-
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd t/a Valley Enforcement (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number -xxxxxxx- arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx xxxx Pay and Display, on xx January 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx 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
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘No valid ticket or permit displayed’. 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, or that her ticket was not displayed at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.

It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) The ticket was not of proper quality, as it was not adhesive, and so did not remain in position.
b) The terms of parking did not state that a ticket must be displayed at all times - only that it must be displayed. The Appellant submits that the ticket was displayed when she left her vehicle.
c) The Operator does not have sufficient proprietary interest, or rights of possession in order to issue a parking charge notice in relation to this land.
d) The parking charge is disproportionate as it does not reflect the loss suffered by the Operator.

The Appellant has submitted that the Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, as to their 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 they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, any contract or other evidence 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.
I need not decide any other issues.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

hammer68

well donw , found a pps sign in a car park in babbacombe saying vehicles will be clamped and towed away !!!

Dave_TH

ShivyDevon wrote: »

Successful Popla Decision received y'day

T
The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, any contract or other evidence 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.
I need not decide any other issues.
Chris Adamson
Assessor

Side stepped other relevant issues again, hey POPLA

trisontana

Another defeat for PE:-

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.
The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly displayed, or that his vehicle remained at the car park for longer than permitted.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) According to the case of VCS v HMRC, the parking charge is unenforceable as the Operator does not have sufficient proprietary interest or occupation over the land in question.
b) There is no contract between the parties as no goods or services were supplied in return for payment.
c) The parking charge notice, an invoice, did not give the appropriate details regarding the payment of VAT in relation to the charge.
d) The parking charge does not reflect the loss caused by the Appellant overstaying the maximum permitted period in a free car park.
e) The parking charge is a penalty and so not enforceable.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent the loss suffered, and so, as a penalty, is not enforceable.
The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking. 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 submitted that its charges have been held not to be penalties, and to be enforceable, in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of the loss caused in every car park.
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 in order to tip the balance in its favour.
In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case.
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 any other issues.

Chris Adamson
Assessor


Note the remarks concerning signs. Does this mean that PE will have to change all their signs before they can start claiming any "losses"?

Umkomaas

I wonder if PE are starting to think that maybe Rachel isn't up to the job given the defeats (and the grounds for those defeats) she is managing to achieve?

Stroma

trisontana wrote: »

The Operator has submitted that its charges have been held not to be penalties, and to be enforceable, in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge.

Is this a marked change in Popla? I have never really seen them refer to other cases in such a way, could it be that if parking eye and others have not submitted a breakdown of alleged costs it fails straight away ?

Umkomaas

Stroma wrote: »

Is this a marked change in Popla? I have never really seen them refer to other cases in such a way, could it be that if parking eye and others have not submitted a breakdown of alleged costs it fails straight away ?

Seems that's what Chris Adamson is saying. It will be interesting what Shona makes of it. Will BPA pressure be applied? :cool:

zx10ninjababe

Sorry if im doing this wrong im a newbie.. I need advice on how to appeal to a letter i have recd from Roadchef, I have spoken to the appeals people and also emailed them and they keep denying receiving any correspondance from me.. they are now threatening me with legal action.. this has gone on since April... I am worried as i havemy father seriously ill with cancer and now getting threatening letters from them.

Any advice would be helpful

Thanks


Ann