POPLA Decisions

Redx

and yet ANOTHER PE loss due to not a gpeol !!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816911

morrisoscar

Win for my son with help from here

(Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ***** arising
out of the presence at John Lennon Airport, on 22 May 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
On 22 May 2013 at John Lennon 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 pre estimate
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.
Farah Ahmad
Assessor

Thanks to coupon mad for edit/ strengthening appeal.:beer:

Redx

UKPC loss on retail park due to another not a gpeol https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4761739

trisontana

Yet another parking Eye GPEOL loss:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83059&st=20&start=20

Thanks for everyone's help regarding my PCN

I received an email from POPLA today and my appeal has been allowed.

According to the adjudicator the appeal was allowed only on this point

"The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of
the Appellant in relation of the charges provided by the Operator being
operational costs and they should not be used as a genuine pre-estimate of
loss in this case."

Whatever there reason - I'm happy and ParkingEye are probably not.

John_Fletcher

Decision Allowed

Assessor: Aurela Qerimi

Date: 17 February 2013

Reported:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4764588

Successful Grounds: It was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss


PPC: ParkingEye


************ (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number **************
arising out of the presence at Fistral Beach, on 26 August 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

On 26 August 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with
registration mark ******** for parking without purchasing the appropriate
parking time.

The Operator’s case is that parking on this site is “Paid Parking 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 observed parked for 35 minutes without making payment for parking.

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.

The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of
the Appellant in relation of the charges provided by the Operator being
operational costs and they should not be used as a genuine pre-estimate of
loss in this case.

The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, 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 without purchasing the appropriate
parking time.

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

And yet another PE no GPEOL:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4871582

Redx

VCS loss at Humberside Airport , again on not a gpeol

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4832399

Capt._Calculator

(Appellant)
-v-
UK Car Park Management Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 906945 arising out
of the presence at X, on 14 September 2013, of a vehicle
with registration mark X
.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the
£100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
operator.
9663043951 2 17 January 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 14 September 2013 at Chestnut Court, 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 without
displaying a valid permit despite signage at the site to indicate that this was
necessary to do so. There is photographic evidence to support that there was
signage at the site to inform motorists of parking terms and conditions. There is
also photographic evidence to support that the appellant’s vehicle was
parked without displaying a valid permit.
It is the appellant’s case that the signage at the site was not clear or
adequate, as per the BPA code. The appellant also states that the operator
does not have the authority to issue the parking charge notice and that the
parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
In consideration of the evidence before me I find that I find that there is
photographic evidence which shows that the appellant’s vehicle was parked
without displaying a valid permit and therefore in breach of the parking terms
and conditions. There is also evidence to show that there was clear and
adequate signage at the site. There is also evidence of signage erected
almost in front of the appellant’s parked vehicle.
In response to the appellant’s submission that the operator does not have the
authority to issue the parking charge notice, the operator has provided
evidence showing that they hold a contractual agreement with the
landowner, giving the operator the authority to issue the parking charge
notice. Therefore I find that the operator does have authority to issue the
parking charge notice.
In reviewing evidence relating to the signage erected at the site I find that
the operator has established that they are not seeking damages as a result of
breach of contract. The signage states “…you are contractually agreeing to
pay a parking charge fee…” which would indicate consideration and not
damages. Therefore the operator does not need to establish a genuine pre
estimate of loss.
Accordingly the appeal is refused.
Farah Ahmad
Assessor

bod1467

Hmm. Another odd result from this same assessor.

On 14 September 2013 at Chestnut Court, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site

What does Farah thinks breaching the terms and conditions means?

Coupon-mad

Chris Adamson knows what no GPEOL means:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4793386

Firefly72's thread recounts another typical failure for Excel who always send a list of business costs - and in this case it was the Peel Centre where I understand (allegedly) that in such car parks Excel 'sometimes' have an agreement where money changes hands that isn't mentioned in their calculations and is redacted from the contract (so I heard, so it appears!).


And this on the same day as Excel were refused an application to re-take a claim to court that their special legal 'expert' had forgotten to turn up for...so I heard. Allegedly.
:beer: