POPLA Decisions

4consumerrights

Washalowski appeal upheld: UKCPS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4820345

Richard Reeve signed the Email letter. UKCPS cancelled the PCN. They did not reply to requests for docs or £100 breakdown of costs. They simply capitulated. So POPLA simply say that my appeal will be allowed by order of the Senior Adjudicator.

(I wonder if this has anything to do with their dodgy codes as well)

Sassii

28 January 2014
Reference 5763533507
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Dear Sir or Madam
(Appellant)
-v-
Parking Control Management (uk) Limited (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXX.
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

Yours sincerely,
Richard Reeve
Service Manager


Original post https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4833449

Redx

another successful POPLA appeal against PE at Fistral Beach

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4812014 post #119

blawford

A win for me after receiving a ticket from UKPC while parked in my residents space "without clearly displaying my permit".

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4613139

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued parking charge notice number [removed] arising out of the presence at [removed], on 22 May 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark [removed]. The Operator recorded that the vehicle was parked in a residents parking space without clearly displaying a valid residents parking permit.

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 has made representations, alluding to the case of Vehicle Control Services Limited - and - The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) where it was held that without landowner rights of possession, they cannot make a contract with a driver using this facility. The Appellant submits
that the Operator does not have this authority.

The Operator rejected the representations, because The Operator submits that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices at the site.

The case of VCS v HMRC concerned Value Added Tax but, In Paragraph 46 of the Decision, it states:

VCS is permitted under the contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action.

This case has now been considered by the Court of Appeal ([2013] EWCA Civ 186) where, in allowing the appeal of VCS, the Court held:

In the present case the contract between VCS and the landowner gives VCS the right to eject trespassers. That is plain from the fact that it is entitled to tow away vehicles that infringe the terms of parking. The contract between VCS and the motorist gives VCS the same right. Given that the motorist has accepted a permit on terms that if the conditions are broken his car is liable to be towed away, I do not consider that it would be open to a motorist to deny that VCS has the right to do that which the contract says it can. In order to vindicate those rights, it is necessary for VCS to have the right to sue in trespass. If, instead of towing away a vehicle, VCS imposes a parking charge I see no impediment to regarding that as damages for trespass.

The material events occurred before the coming into force of Section 54 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, it is clear that, subject to the terms of the contract between them and the landowner, an operator may issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle for a breach of conditions of parking.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner (if the Operator is not the landowner) to manage and enforce parking. This is set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice. Therefore the Operator is likely to have authority to issue parking charge notices. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority. A copy of the written authority the Operator submits they have from the landowner has not been produced.

Therefore, having carefully considered all the evidence before me, I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the Operator has not shown that they have authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices. As the Appellant submits that the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to the Operator to prove otherwise. The Operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor

Thanks to everyone who helped.

Aaron_Aadvark

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87415

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator issued parking charge notice number ****** arising out of the presence at Piccadilly Car Park, on 11 July 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark *******. The operator recorded that the vehicle was not displaying a valid ticket.

The appellant has made various representations;

I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

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

The operator’s case is that the charge is a genuine pre – estimate of loss, the operator has sought to justify this by providing, amongst other things a list of their business expenses such as patrolling officers fuel costs, vehicle insurance and vehicle maintenance, however this does not justify a loss resulting from a breach. The operator would have incurred these costs even if the breach did
not occur.

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.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed

Chickabiddybex

POPLA decided in my favour against Parking-Eye
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4807051

Not a pre-estimate of loss and the wording of the sign suggests that it should be.

Redx

TPS loss based on GPEOL

two separate visits of 30 minutes each to the Cambridge Retail Park on 26 Oct.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4836350

post #29

Just received the decision from POPLA: My appeal is allowed based on GPEOL.

Thank you so much to everyone especially Coupon-mad and Guys Dad for helping me. Justice has been served.

One thing to note, TPS sent me their response to POPLA and in that they included a printout of this thread. Yes, this exact thread. TPS wrote: "Having noticed a thread of correspondence relating to this case on an internet forum we can't help but feeling this case has no real merit and should not be treated as a genuine appeal. Most of the content posted on the POPLA appeal form was provided by a number of forum users."

POPLA's decision:

(Appellant)
-v-
Total Parking Solutions Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number CTxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Cambridge Retail Park, on October xx 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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At xx:xx, on October xx 2013, a CCTV automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering the Cambridge Retail Park.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by exceeding the maximum stay time permitted at the site.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. The Appellant raised a number of points and one of them was that the amount determined was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed this submission.

It appears to be the Appellant’s case that the parking charge represents a sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.

The Operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Redx

EXCEL loss again at the PEEL CENTRE stockport

not a gpeol

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4761346 post #63

its taken SOOOOO long but the results of a appeal came through this morning.

i won
it seems my email was take into consideration

Thank you so much haha

"It is the Operator’s case that a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXX
was recorded entering the site at 20:26 and exiting at 21:17, recording a total
stay of 51 minutes without displaying a valid ticket/permit for parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that the Operator has no legal capacity to issue and
enforce parking charge notices and that the charge sought is a unlawful
penalty.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the
Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed
this submission.
It appears to be the Appellant’s case that the parking charge represents a
sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in
advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of
the loss caused by the alleged breach.
The Operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages,
and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s
submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal."

trisontana

SIP no GPEOL:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87023&hl=

Hi,

I just won a POPLA appeal against this company.

If you havent already, appeal the charge based on the fact you paid the money to them (albeit for a different vehicle)
They have therefore suffered no financial loss.

Aaron_Aadvark

Breastfeeding is not a mitigating circumstance according to POPLA!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4790743

"Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for overstaying the maximum time permitted. The Operator’s automatic number plate

recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter the site at 15:59 and exit at 18:11, a stay of 2 hours and 12 minutes. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms of parking which limited parking to 2 hours. The Operator has produced photos of site signage in support of its case.

The Appellant disputes that the vehicle was improperly parked. It is the Appellant’s case that any overstay was accidental and incurred whilst breastfeeding her fourteen-week-old baby. The Appellant produced a copy of her baby’s Personal Child Health Record to show that she was breastfeeding her baby around the time the PCN was issued.


That it was an advertised condition that parking was restricted to 2 hours is not disputed. The Operator does not dispute that the Appellant fed her baby whilst parked at the site. However, it was the Appellant’s responsibility to park in compliance with the terms of parking advertised. It was therefore incumbent upon her to ensure that, whatever her reasons for parking, she did not stay beyond 2 hours.

Having carefully reviewed the evidence before me, I find that by overstaying the maximum time permitted the Appellant became liable for a parking charge in accordance with the terms displayed.

The appeal is refused.

Matthew Shaw
Assessor"