POPLA Decisions

hoohoo

ParkingEye lost on GPEOL

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82910&st=20&start=20

hoohoo

Fistral Beach.
2 losses for parkingeye

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83794

1st one on GPEOL
2nd one because they forgot to send in an evidence pack

Coupon-mad

And again, ParkingEye lose on 'no GPEOL':


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82075


Running total on this list for ParkingEye
96 losses
89 gpeol
4 no authority
1 signage
1 grace period
1 no evidence pack


No-one loses at POPLA against most PPCs, including ParkingEye, when they say that 'the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' (no GPEOL in our forum shorthand).

GAJASA3

Another
Successful Appeal Dec 2013
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700


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
20 December 2013
Reference 6062843071
always quote in any communication with POPLA
(Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 470984/711449
arising out of the presence at Tower Road Newquay, on 14 September
2013, of a vehicle with registration mark .
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.
6062843071 2 20 December 2013
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 14 September 2013 at Tower Road Newquay, 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 was parked at the site
without purchasing the appropriate parking time despite signage at the site
to indicate that this was necessary to do so. 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 , enter the site at 14:01 and exit at 15:21,
a total stay of 1 hour and 20 minutes. Further evidence from the Operator’s
whitelist database shows that the same vehicle was registered as having
purchased parking time of 1 hour only.
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
6062843071 3 20 December 2013
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

Parking-Prankster

VCS lose at Humberside Airport...not GPEOL


One of those stupid PDFs where cut and paste does not work, but we all know the score.


Interesting that the POPLA code ends in a number >500 which indicates that this was the 5xxth appeal rejected by VCS on that day. I wonder how many appealed to POPLA. 500*27=13,500. A few days of that leakage will see the tanks drying up.

Redx

you can use this website for conversions

http://www.convertpdftoword.net/

best to then copy and paste into notepad and save to cancel out any formatting issues

Redx

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4630791&page=3 post #48

another NOT a GPEOL win against PE (no verdict details though)

barginunter

Won the appeal, thanks especially to Hovite who drafted me such a great and concise appeal letter. I'm in France atm so can't post full details yet.

Here we go
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.

trisontana

A GPEOL for Apcoa:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81960&st=20&start=20

"Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated that the wording of the sign indicates that the charge is damages and therefore as I am unable to determine the terms and conditions from the signage provided by the operator and the operator has not disputed that the charge sought is damages, I am satisfied that 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 parking over two bays. As a result of this, I am not required to address the other issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Edit, Shehla Pirwany was the assessor

hoohoo

98th known ParkingEye loss

ItalianBoy reports POPLA rule on...GPEOL
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4736278