POPLA Decisions

Big_Bad_Dad

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

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.

It's a good thing POPLA has woken up to this farce.

Computersaysno

IIRC a few firms have the wording that the 'charge' is an extra parking fee [ie not a 'breach of contract'].


Has POPLA had any cases in this category yet??

Coupon-mad

Not recently that we know of - but the reason we say we have 100% record on cases advised about since Easter is because there was a Combined Parking Solutions case on that basis which I helped with in Feb/March 2013 but it was lost (earlier in this thread). We'd try harder with them next time!

Diva0804

Happy new year everyone. Another win here against Athena ANPR :T.
Please see my thread for more details : http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4790403&page=2

bobcat2

*************(Appellant)
-v-
Euro Car Parks Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ************** arising
out of the presence at Sainsburys Colney Fields, on **** 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
giving the reason as: ‘Exceeded the maximum free parking time period’. 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 he overstayed the maximum stay time permitted.
It is the Appellant’s case that:

a) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the
breach.

b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge
notices in relation to the land in question.

c) The Operator has not demonstrated that its Automatic Number Plate
Recognition technology is properly calibrated.

The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a
genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.

There is no dispute that the parking charge represents liquidated damages –
compensation agreed in advance- for an alleged breach of the parking
agreement. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of
Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any
parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any
charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised
by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it.

The Operator has submitted that such charges have been held 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 preestimate
of the loss caused in every car park.


The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge
as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this
justification. The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine
estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the
Appellant’s overstay. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a
large number of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses
consequential to the Appellant’s breach. I am not satisfied that the parking
charge substantially represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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.

:beer::rotfl::T

Bargains_for_me

A big thank you to all on here:T, I read through and followed the advice on here and threw in all the usual suspects, including no gpeol, no authority, no contract, inadequate signage, no grace period etc, and today received a one pager "one in the eye" reply telling PE what they could do with their extortionate charge:rotfl::beer:

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 Operator has rejected the Appellant’s submissions in the notice of
rejection they sent, because they state that by parking for longer than the
stay authorised, the Appellant breached terms and conditions of parking. The
burden is on the Operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine preestimate
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.
Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the Operator has failed to
prove that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

:T:T:T

Umkomaas

Excellent result BFM - and all on your own without direct input from us. Thank you for taking this through all the stages yourself, freeing up regulars' time to help others, and letting us know the outcome. Impressed by your single-mindedness in seeing this through.

There's not been an 'official count', but you must be somewhere near to being the 100th POPLA winner over PE utilising forum advice.

Serious Kudos!

trisontana

And still PE churn out the same discredited stuff that their "losses" can include day-to-day running costs plus the expense of erecting cameras and signs. Are they stupid, or are they hoping that there will be some sort of miracle with judges and POPLA assessors suddenly coming round to PE's point of view?

trisontana

Unless this is a duplication of one on here, this is yet another GPEOL loss for PE:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83676&pid=910042&st=20&#entry910042

Bargains_for_me

trisontana wrote: »

Unless this is a duplication of one on here, this is yet another GPEOL loss for PE:-

No that's not me. Didnt use pepipoo, just followed all of you and threw in some extra;) . It is Borehamwood Shopping Park where there is no commercial justification for the £85 charge if anyone gets one there in the future:beer: