POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad

And Total Parking Solutions also shot down by no GPEOL:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4836109

Coupon-mad

And the third 'no GPEOL' case today, won against METEOR:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63720889#Comment_63720889

Spin59

Not sure if this is the correct place to post but just wanted to register my thanks to the members of this forum. I didn't directly ask for advice but found enough useful info on the forums to appeal my ticket from the infamous Peel Centre and was successful on the basis of GPEOL.

Thanks once again

Parking-Prankster

Liverpool John Lennon Airport
Won on GPEOL
Assessor felt he did not need to consider the redacted areas of the contract because the appeal has already been allowed.


The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, [redacted], of a vehicle with registration mark [redacted]


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’.

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:
a) The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to the land in question.
c) There was insufficient signage on site.
d) The Operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology was non-compliant.

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. The Operator has not addressed this submission.

There is no dispute that the charge represents specified damages for breach of contract. Accordingly, the charge must be 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 to tip the balance in its favour. 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 stopping where not permitted. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, this list of heads includes a large proportion which are not related to
the Appellant’s breach. I do not accept that the parking charge substantially amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

I note that the Appellant responded to the Operator’s evidence by submitting that the contract produced between the parties was deliberately redacted to remove clauses which would have shown the Operator’s justification of the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss to be untrue; however, given that I have found the Operator’s did not in fact justify the
charge, I need not address this issue any further.


Prankster's note


VCS submitted their new 2013 contract. However, the redacted areas exactly matched those in the 2012 contract which showed VCS pay £25,000 a year to the airport, plus also up to 35% commission on each ticket.


The Prankster therefore recommends this is pointed out to POPLA in every appeal.

Coupon-mad

Highview beaten on 'no GPEOL'

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4877508

EDIT = THIS IS COMPLETELY OUT OF DATE NOW SO DON'T FOR ONE MINUTE THINK 'GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS' IS A THING ANY MORE. IT'S NOT, IT WAS KICKED OUT AS A DEFENCE BY THE SUPREME COURT, WHOSE LUDICROUS AND ANTI-CONSUMER DECISION CAUSED A RACE TO COURT AFTER 2015, AFTER THE OUT OF TOUCH JUDGES BACKED THE WRONG HORSE IN PARKINGEYE V BEAVIS.

WHEN WILL THEY LEARN?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Highview beaten on 'no GPEOL' (and threw their toys out of the pram!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4877508

I love the way they do this, not much spurring going on though

trisontana

Another GPEOL loss for PE at Membury Services :-

"Hi all, Just got my appeal decision back and I'm happy to tell you that The appeal was upheld because P.E. could not prove that there was genuine pure estimate of loss. Just want to say a huge thank you to everyone for your help, especially School run mum. Thanks a lot"


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83766&st=40&start=40

On the subject of "loss", I like this quote from Parking Prankster:-

It is impossible to run a business solely on monies from breach of contract, because this can only put you back in the position you were. it cannot be used to generate a profit and run a business.

ezerscrooge

And a win against UKPC - on No Genuine Pre-Etsimate of Loss

Coupon-mad

ezerscrooge wrote: »

And a win against UKPC - on No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

Well done!

ezerscrooge wrote: »

A win against UKPC on no GPEOL. Assessor was Marina Kapour. UKPC blathered on about liquidated damages but this was rejected by the assessor.

Many thanks to everyone on here, your help has been greatly appreciated.

UKPC failed to send an evidence pack - so a complaint will be going to the BPA and POPLA about that.

I've also been giving guidance to others ticketed in this car park - the UKPC bloke looks quite bemused when I'm telling people how they can defeat these scam charges. And I've done a stack of 'advice' leaflets to hand out to the ticketed drivers. Revenge is sweet indeed.

And even more well done for that!


:beer:

Computersaysno

Surely this 'PPC didn't send evidence pack' needs to be nailed.


At the very least the PPC should be getting COPs...they are free after all.


Where there is a history of this the PPC should have to send all stuff recorded/registered.