POPLA Decisions

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Another gpeol win against pe.

And he did it all by using the search facility! Amazing what u can do when you look http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86683&st=0&gopid=910628&#entry910628

Computersaysno

100 POPLA @£27 = £2700


vs


250,000 tickets issued with a payment rate of 40% @ £70 = £7million


They must be shaking in their boots....

Redx

yet another NO GPEOL against PE

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4790792

edit

looks like this member may have actually won TWO appeals against PE by using Popla , not just the initial one I linked to

2nd one here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4786204

trisontana

This time it's CEL who lose on GPEOL:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85443&hl=

Thanks to everyone who commented on this forum - the appeal was successful:

*****
In this present case, the Operator has not justified the amount of the parking charge being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I have carefully considered the Operator’s submissions and considering everything before me, I do not find that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
*****

Keep up the good work.

trisontana

PE loss because of non-authority. (makes a change from GPEOL!) :-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86742&hl=

jdybnsn

After receiving a strange email from POPLA saying the case had been dropped by District Enforcement in November, swiftly followed by another email from District Enforcement Ltd saying no, it was not !?! ...and since then hearing nothing more from either party I'd assumed that the case has in fact been dropped.
Imagine my surprise therefore (but also delight !) when I got an email today from POPLA stating we'd won the case. Although disappointly it failed to make any reference to the fact that there were NO signs at all at the entrance of the carpark, the contract DE Ltd provided was out of date and no longer existed according to the other party named on it, and that the DVLA details were obtained out side of the timeframe allowed. Also no reference to my friend's recognised disabilities (Blue Badge Holder), which also includes vision problems.
Any and all, of which, I feel are far more serious issues than the one quoted below that the appeal was allowed on.

Still a win is a win I suppose,...... especially as it cost them 2 lots of appeal money as they failed to obtain the driver or owner details the first time and POPLA somewhat weirdly 'deleted' the first appeal ;


PARKINGON PRIVATELANDAPPEALS


08 January 2014


Reference


Always quote in any communication with POPLA


Mr x (Appellant)


-v-


District Enforcement Limited (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number

---

arisingout


of the presence at the Swine Market, Nantwich, on x May 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 noticeforthwith.


08 January 2014


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


Onx May 2013, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with

registrationmark xxxxxxx for parking without displaying a valid parking

permit.

Itis the Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car

parkare clearly displayed on numerous signs throughout the site. The signage

says:“valid permits must be displayed at all times.” The Operator has

producedphotographic evidence of the vehicle which show that no valid

parkingpermit was displayed within the vehicle on the date of the parking

event.

TheAppellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only

elaborateon the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely

thatthe parking charge amount is punitive and it is not a genuine preestimate

ofloss.

TheOperator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice

ofrejection they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park

conditionshad occurred by parking without a valid parking permit clearly

displayed.They say that the £120 full rate charge was set prior to the

introductionof the new code of practice and therefore falls under the

transitionalarrangements set out under Appendix F of the Code of Practice

andthe amount is fully compliant with regulation 19.6 of the new Code of

Practice.They sate that their charges are not punitive as they are within the

guidelinesset by the British Parking Association and accepted by the Office

ofFair Trading and their parking charges occur when the parking event

occursnot on breach of contract and therefore, they are terms of contract

andsubject to the Regulation 6(2) (b) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer

Contractregulations 1999.They have provided a list of judgments to support

theirappeal.

Theparking charge in this case is £120. The BPA Code states at Paragraph

19.5that if the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a

breachof contract or act of trespass, the charge must be based on the

genuinepre-estimate of loss suffered. The Code continues that the BPA would

notexpect this amount to be more than £100 and that if the charge is more

thanthis then the Operator must be able to justify the amount in advance.

TheBPA have previously indicated that that they have not found such

justificationin any case.

Inote the Operator’s submissions in relation to the amount of the parking

chargebeing compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and I appreciate

theirefforts to prove their case nevertheless, in this present case, the Operator

hasnot justified the amount of parking charge, being in excess of £100. I have

carefullyconsidered both parties submissions and considering everything

beforeme, I do not find that the parking charge represents a genuine

pre-estimateof loss suffered.


Accordingly,this appeal must be allowed.


Aurela Qerimi


Assessor

Coupon-mad

That is a very strange win but well done!

District Enforcement are one of the unusual ones, like CPS, whose signs do not suggest a breach of contract. In the above decision it says 'They state that their charges are not punitive as they are within the guidelines set by the British Parking Association and accepted by the Office of Fair Trading and their parking charges occur when the parking event occurs not on breach of contract and therefore, they are terms of contract.'

And yet the Assessor has seen that £120 is outside of the BPA CoP ceiling and decided that means the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (which it doesn't have to be because it's a 'contractual term' a fee for parking there!). In fact that matter was 'only' a BPA issue and not something that should win a POPLA appeal (as Richard Reeve confirmed in an email to me, a BPA breach does not in itself mean a POPLA win). Very odd!

You would have expected the Assessor to find in favour of the appellant on 'no contract' if it was out of date anyway though.

JUST TO WARN PEOPLE NOT TO RELY ON ''NO GPEOL'' WHEN IT'S DISTRICT ENFORCEMENT OR CONTROLLED PARKING SOLUTIONS. A SPECIFIC APPEAL WOULD NEED TO BE WRITTEN, MAINLY ON CONTRACT OR 'DISGUISED PENALTY/UNFAIR TERMS' IMHO.

ianyoung82

Decision:- Allowed

Assessor:Marina Kapour

Date: 29 November 2013

Reported:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4761772

Successful Grounds: No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

PPC: ParkingEye Ltd.



PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

29 November 2013

always quote in any communication with POPLA

Me (Appellant)

-V-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX

arising out of the presence at Home Bargains, Wrexham, on XX August 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.

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

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that on XX August 2013, of a vehicle with registration

mark XXXXXXX was recorded entering the said car park at 09:49 and exiting

at 12:12, recording a total stay of 2 hours 23 minutes, in a car park with a

maximum authorised stay of 2 hours.

The Operator’s case is that there is clear signage at the site informing

motorists that the site allows a maximum stay of 2 hours. The operator submits

that the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the site by

overstaying the maximum stay by 23 minutes.

The Appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge notice is

disproportionate and exceeds that potential cost or consequential loss to the

landowner by the alleged breach along with other representations which I

am minded to accept have been addressed by the Operator adequately.

The signage produced in evidence by the operator states that a parking

charge notice would be issued for “failure to comply”. This wording appears

to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the

parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate

of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the

parking terms.

The operator submits that the amount of the parking charge is legally

enforceable on the following three grounds;

1. That there is a strong commercial justification for the charge,

2. That there is ample case law to suggest that the value of such a

parking charge is not punitive and,

3. That the charge is a genuine pre- estimate of loss.

The operator has cited case law to find that the charge is commercially

justifiable and that the charge cannot be considered a penalty. The operator

submits that the private management of car parks is commercially necessary

for landholders. The operator further submits that landholders have a right to

commercially manage their private land as they see fit to allow motorists to

use the land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The operator states that this is commercially necessary as the landholder needs to manage

their land in order to ensure that their business can run successfully.

It seems that the courts have accepted a third category of liquidated

damages, a sum which is commercially justified – in cases where the sum is

neither a penalty nor is it strictly a genuine pre-estimate of loss – where the

Operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or the loss that might reasonably

be incurred, by the breach. However, 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. I am not minded to accept that the charge

is justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate

of loss in order to be enforceable against the Appellant.

I find that the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular

car park operation cannot in itself amount to commercial justification.

The operator has cited case law in order to submit that the value of the

parking charge is reasonable and not punitive. I find that each case is

different on its facts and it is not possible for me to allow an appeal based on

these short summaries.

The operator submits that that the pre-estimate of loss will depend on the

losses to themselves and the landholder. The operator submits that this will

vary on the time of the day, the day of the week and even upon the

weather. The operator submits that the losses incurred by them include, but

are not restricted to:

* Erection and maintenance of the signage

* Installation

* Monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate

recognition (ANPR) systems

* Employment of office based administrative staff

* Membership and other fees required to manage the business

effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general

costs including stationary, postage etc.

The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a substantial proportion

of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach. The aim of damages for breach of

contract is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the

contract been performed. Accordingly, the Operator cannot include in its

pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses, but the

costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective

of the Appellant’s conduct and not as a result of the Appellant’s breach.

Considering carefully, all 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 or fall within commercial justification.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Marina Kapour

Assessor

Kate1899

Victory !!! Thank you very much for all help with my appeal. Of course Assesor has decided that appeal must be allowed. (NO GPEOL) :j This are the "Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination" :


On "DATE" at Robin Hood Airport, 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 stopped her vehicle in a no
stopping area despite signage erected at the site to prohibit this. There is
photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage 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 stopped in a no stopping area.

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.

Coupon-mad

POPLA win against 'Trev the Clamp's outfit, ANPR Ltd, no GPEOL despite the hilarious and unintelligible drivel ANPR Ltd sent in trying to explain their 'losses':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86851&st=0&gopid=913005&#entry913005

The appellant IPC1963 on pepipoo, also received the usual N Martin “your case is doomed” letter which had the verification code hidden in it and the OP also added:

'Their evidence contained a schematic of their signage on the car park along with photos showing the exact spots where they say signs were evident would you believe no signs were in the photos! Just like the photos I submitted! Could this be because there were no signs?! Oh and one of the signs highlighted was a National Clamps sign threatening clamping.'

But the best bit is the losses 'explanation' - do read it!