POPLA Decisions

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Heres one of my own from Gallian/paymypcn (run by Roxburghe) looks like they didnt even bother, in response to a popla appeal, i suspect they dont a lot of the time.

I thought Popla was closed until Monday....

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any
evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any
evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

Piemaster

Just got another standard win against Parking Eye. I gave them the options of GPEOL or contract (and a couple of other token stabs in the dark). They went with the former.

I will edit this post copy and paste the text when I can, but the decision came in Acrobat format and for some reason a standard copy/paste leaves the text all garbled.

Redx

Piemaster wrote: »

Just got another standard win against Parking Eye. I gave them the options of GPEOL or contract (and a couple of other token stabs in the dark). They went with the former.

I will edit this post copy and paste the text when I can, but the decision came in Acrobat format and for some reason a standard copy/paste leaves the text all garbled.

see post #737 then , and use notepad not word if copying and pasting

trisontana

Yet another PE GPEOL loss for PE from this FB page:-

https://www.facebook.com/groups/255720101151896/

Yay another victory! Just received the result of today's POPLA appeal - a success.
No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, as predicted.
This was for a 10min overstay at Home Bargains in Pwllheli, North Wales.
Thanks for your help!

ivyfox

Back in September (29th, to be exact) this forum provided the necessary information for me to lodge an appeal against Civil Enforcement Ltd t/a a whole bunch of names including Starparks. (As a new user I can't post a link, sorry.)

I'm pleased to report that on 20 December 2013 I received an e-mail from POPLA stating:

"The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXX.

Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator."

As I received no paperwork from the other side (as I would expect in a civil court case), I guess they failed to file the same with POPLA or else couldn't be bothered and opted to cancel the charge and forego the hassle.

Thank you again for all the help and constructive comments - another one in the eye for these parking companies!

Umkomaas

ivyfox wrote: »

Back in September (29th, to be exact) this forum provided the necessary information for me to lodge an appeal against Civil Enforcement Ltd t/a a whole bunch of names including Starparks. (As a new user I can't post a link, sorry.)

I'm pleased to report that on 20 December 2013 I received an e-mail from POPLA stating:

"The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXX.

Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator."

As I received no paperwork from the other side (as I would expect in a civil court case), I guess they failed to file the same with POPLA or else couldn't be bothered and opted to cancel the charge and forego the hassle.

Thank you again for all the help and constructive comments - another one in the eye for these parking companies!

They've just saved themselves 27 notes when clearly faced with a non-winnable, forum-fuelled appeal. CEL showing a modicum of common sense when faced with reality - maybe not, they also chicken out when faced with strong, forum-assisted defences at court too.

Brilliant result ivyfox, against a litigious, but cowardly outfit when robustly challenged.

4consumerrights

Not filing paperwork in response to a POPLA appeal seems to be an up and coming trend - I wonder why?

Does the parking company pay the fee if they fail to submit paperwork?

Are they planning to regroup after their January meeting?? with new strategies?

Redx

another win against VCS at RHA on not a GPEOL https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4727020

LATE EVIDENCE PACK TOO !!

Ivor Bigun (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)


Thee Operator issued parking charge notice number 123456789 arising
out of the presence at Robin Hood Airport, Approach Roads on 99 May
2013, of a vehicle with registration mark YXXXXXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered thee 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.


Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee off London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded


 
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

Thee operator issued parking charge notice number VCC123456789 arising out of
The presence at Robin Hood Airport, Approach Roads on 99 May 2013, of a
Vehicle with registration mark Yxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the
Vehicle stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them
all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

The appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge notice is not a
genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The signage displayed at the site and the case summary provided as
evidence by the operator show that the amount of the parking charge
notice is a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach
of the parking contract..

In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the
operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves as
a result of the appellant’s breach.. Amongst other things, the operator has
included costs such as write off allowances, which does not amount to a
genuine pre –– estimate of loss, as this is not a loss resulting from a breach. I find
that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss
suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach.

Considering carefully al l the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages
sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate
of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed

Assessor

Redx

another PE loss on not a GPEOL https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4736278

"On the *******2013 at Morrison's ******, 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 stay of 2 hours at the parking site.
There is evidence to support tat 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, reg ***** enter the site at ****and exit at ***** a total stay of ****.
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 £85 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 operation 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 theer is a commercial justification for the parking charge and they have listed general business costs, however this cost does not amount to commercial justification.
The operator states that they have incurred the cost 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 of the parking charges 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 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

*************
Assessor"

citybluemoon

Just had a win - albeit a bit strange.
I did my POPLA appeal helped from this forum and before Xmas received a letter from PE saying "please find enclosed all information sent to POPLA regarding your case reference number above". However - there was nothing else in the envelope!
A couple of weeks later I received the following from POPLA:



The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xxxxxx/xxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark xxxxxx.


Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.


This was then followed by a letter from PE which said "we can confirm that this charge has been cancelled".


Any idea from anyone on why this has happened in this way??