POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

But OMG, we have a loss here, CPM:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4811265


I wrote that POPLA appeal - as the signage was borderline in its wording - and it seems to me that the Assessor has erred. The OP needs to complain to the Chief Adjudicator as he was never sent any 'evidence' before the POPLA decision was made and because of what appears to be a flawed decision that they 'don't need to show GPEOL'.

What do others think? Any comments please add them to the linked case. We need this one looked at again.

prjohnsonnn10

Coincidentally I just got a successful appeal thru from POPLA also based on 'signage' . See below. I was expecting the GPEOL to be the winner but they didnt even get that fair in my submission and gave me the decision based on CPP not 'proving' adequatley that the signage was in fact clear.


10 January 2014
Reference 1773123003
always quote in any communication with POPLA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
CP Plus Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 547131023014
arising out of the presence at Salisbury Square, on 1 November 2013, of
a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx.
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.
1773123003 2 10 January 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for parking
in violation of the displayed terms and conditions. The Operator submits that a
parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of
parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that he did not see any clear signs on site warning of
the parking restrictions and that any sign he did then later notice were
inadequate.
The Operator is seeking to rely on an agreement between itself and the
Appellant that the Appellant would abide by the terms of parking or face
liability for a parking charge. For such a term to be included in the
agreement, it must be ‘incorporated’ into the agreement. The only relevant
method of incorporation, in this case, is by notice. This means that the
Appellant must have been made aware of the term, before the agreement
was made, in order for it to be deemed part of the agreement. The Appellant
will be deemed to have been made aware of the term if the Operator had
taken reasonable steps to bring the term to the Appellant’s attention. The
usual method by which an Operator takes ‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying
clear signs around the site advertising the terms of parking.
As the Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly
enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the
time and location in question were sufficiently clear.
The Operator has produced picture of two signs on site but I cannot tell the
location of these signs. The Operator has also produced a site map showing
where signs are located. I cannot find on the balance of probabilities, where
the Appellant submits there was no entrance sign at the material time, that
the appellant would have seen signs if parked near the front half of the car
park.
Taking together all of the evidence before me, I must find that the Operator
has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had taken
reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the
Appellant.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
Marina Kapour
Assessor

Coupon-mad

Thanks for that one - it's a useful one to quote about 'no entrance signage' and in fact I have already just used it for 'lesnmandy' who got the refused POPLA appeal I posted before yours here. But they are asking for a review by complaining to the Lead Adjudicator, since they never got the PPC's evidence and the Assessor made errors I am certain. One of the appeal points the Assessor in their case hasn't covered properly is 'no entrance signage'.

seadreaming

Thank-you again to the help I received from the forum.
SD


Reasons for the Assessor’sDetermination

On XMay 201 3, a parkingcharge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXfor parking for longer than the stay authorised.

It is the Operator’s caseis that the car park is “2Hour Maximum Free Stay” as clearly stated on the signage.The Operator says that the terms and conditions are clearly displayedon numerous signs placed at the entrance, exit and throughout thesite. The Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked for 11minutes longer than the permitted stay. They have produced copies ofthe parking charge notice and the signage.

Photographs of the vehicletaken on the day of the alleged improper parking have also been provided bythe Operator.

It is the Appellant’s casethat the vehicle was not improperly parked and she is not liable for theparking charge. The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider theissue of the charge being not genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’srepresentations, as set out in the notice of rejection they sent because,they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred,by parking for longer than the permitted stay. The Operator states that thecharge is fair and reasonable and is in line with the British parking Associationguidelines and at such, it is a genuine pre- estimate
of loss.

The Operator does respondto the Appellant’s representation in relation to the issue of the genuine pre-estimateof loss. Nevertheless, I find that as the onus is on the Operator to addressthe points raised by the Appellant and to support the enforcement of theparking charge notice, the Operator has insufficiently addressed this point intheir submissions. I find that on this occasion, the Operator has failed to dischargethe burden of proof.

Accordingly, this appealmust be allowed.

Coupon-mad

Good old ParkingEye, eh seadreaming?! The operator that keeps on giving when faced with any appeal worded to contend 'no GPEOL'!

MrsG1980

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at John Lennon airport, on 23 September 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.
It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of the site as set out on signage at the site.
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 seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in managing the car park, however, 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.
I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis 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.
Nozir Uddin
Assessor

trisontana

Another GPEOL loss for PE. This time at a motorway service area:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4811452

MrMuttley

ParkingEye Beaumont Leys shopping center

This one was actually broken down at the time. Rather than fight exclusively on a broken down vehicle I decided to stick with the tried and true no GPEOL. I had hoped that they would rule on the breakdown rather than GPEOL just to give us all a change from the usual rulings. :-)

Incidently I made an offer to them of £10 as I was about 2 hours over the maximum allowed time to settle the case in full before going to POPLA . They declined that offer even though I said I would fight on no GPEOL as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 24 September 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with
registration mark XXXXXXX for parking for longer than the four hours permitted.
The Operator’s case is that the site is “4 Hour Free Stay Car Park” as clearly
stated on the signage. The Operator says that the terms and conditions are
clearly displayed on numerous signs placed at the entrance, exit and
throughout the site. The Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was
parked for 2 hours 17 minutes longer than the permitted stay. They have
produced copies of the parking charge notice and the signage. Photographs
of the vehicle taken on the date of the parking event have also been
enclosed by the Operator.

The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of
the excessive charge. The Appellant says that the parking charge is
disproportionate and it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the
correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park
conditions had occurred by parking for longer than the stay authorised. They
state that they believe that their charges are fair and reasonable and they
have provided a list of costs they incur in issuing and enforcing the parking
charge which include among other costs but it is not restricted to costs to BPA
membership, DVLA, loss of revenue, national insurance and etc.

Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find
that the Operator in this case refers to general principles and to other cases
but does not appear to specify the actual heads of loss. I note that some
heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of
loss, nevertheless, I find that a substantial proportion of them do not. Equally
for the reasons, set out above, a list of all their costs in the case cannot
amount to commercial justification. In short, the damages sought on this
particular occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of
loss or fall within commercial justification.

Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

Aurela Qerimi
Assessor.

trisontana

Another PE GPEOL loss, with POPLA seemingly in a bit of a mess:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81954&st=40&start=40

Well, that only took four and a half months from the appeal date and seven months from the alleged offence.

POPLA appeal FINALLY allowed.

I got the cancellation letter from PE today, checked my emails and found the POPLA decision; as predicted, they allowed on the pre estimate of loss.

I can post any documents that might be helpful. Please let me know if anyone would like me to. In the interim I have also been very active with notes on cars and directing people to this website. PePiPoo is (and MSE and Parking Prankster!), fabulous.

Thank you.

Ooh... P.S. The reason it took so long? I appealed in August and waited until December. I then phoned POPLA because they sent me an email about an adjournment. They hung up on me. This may have been an accident of course. I phoned back and they said my case had been adjourned because I had not sent in my evidence and could I send it again. I assured them I had sent it by recorded delivery, I was put on hold and told they had lost and then found my evidence; it had been filed in the wrong file. The case could now go ahead. I waited for the Christmas period to pass (chin chin), and then, in January, contacted POPLA again to please deal with my appeal. A test of patience but all is well.

Redx

PE again for "not a gpeol loss" for overstay at MEMBURY , M4

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4798390

well done supertedgb