POPLA Decisions

edward123

zx10ninjababe wrote: »

Sorry if im doing this wrong im a newbie.. I need advice on how to appeal to a letter i have recd from Roadchef, I have spoken to the appeals people and also emailed them and they keep denying receiving any correspondance from me.. they are now threatening me with legal action.. this has gone on since April... I am worried as i havemy father seriously ill with cancer and now getting threatening letters from them.

Any advice would be helpful

Thanks


Ann

You need to start your own thread as this is solely for POPLA decisions. Your own thread will be given tailored advice.

trisontana

PePipoo are reporting yet another POPLA defeat by a PPC. This time it's TPS, and the reason was they could not show a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

PePipoo are reporting yet another POPLA defeat by a PPC. This time it's TPS, and the reason was they could not show a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Could be a trend

Couldn't find it on PPP - can you put up the link, please?

Umkomaas

A further success against ParkingEye:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=22260

I commented on Pepipoo as an addition to Broadsword's observation - this is what I said

QUOTE (Broadsword @ Fri, 21 Jun 2013 - 11:58)
Interesting to note that (predictably) Parking Eye tried to 'flip' the damages to a contractual sum and yet the assessor saw straight through it and was having none of it.

And the Assessor was Shona, who made a spectacular mess of one of her first cases on the contractual stuff (Basfordlad's appeal). She now seems to be understanding this much better, maybe her college lecturer has covered this module recently?

The other interesting point in my view is the following extract from her adjudication:

'However, this does not indicate that anything below the guideline maximum is automatically proportionate' in response to PE's assertion that as £85 was below the BOA CoP £100 maximum, it was 'fair and reasonable'.

Another 'Gotcha'? Wonder how the BPA will respond to this?

trisontana

And Rachel tried to invoke the famous "Dunlop" case, only to have it thrown back in her face.

Umkomaas

trisontana wrote: »

And Rachel tried to invoke the famous "Dunlop" case, only to have it thrown back in her face.

Clearly a blow-out. Often the cause of a road crash.

edward123

And PE ought to refund the appellant that £10 too

trisontana

Another PPC defeat. This time by PCM (from PePiPoo):-

The Appellant does not dispute that he did not display a permit.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) The parking restrictions were not adequately signed at the entrance to the site;
b) The PCN was incorrectly filled-in;
c) For the parking charge to be enforceable “there should be a loss to the land owner”. The Appellant submitted that “I can see no conceivable financial loss to the landowner or PCM as a result” of the alleged breach.
The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a PCN would be issued for “failure to comply” with the parking conditions. 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. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.
The Operator submitted that the charge “is a pre-estimation of loss based upon [the Operator] providing a 7 day a week parking service including permit management and daily patrols to the client.”
This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same.
Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

Once again a PPc not being able to differentiate between day-to-day running expenses and a true loss.

Umkomaas

POPLA now seem to be 'getting' all of this. I doubt any PPC can put together a genuine pre-estimate of loss other than where an overstay in a P&D car park would equate to nothing more than a couple of quid.

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

POPLA now seem to be 'getting' all of this. I doubt any PPC can put together a genuine pre-estimate of loss other than where an overstay in a P&D car park would equate to nothing more than a couple of quid.

plus another £2.50 for buying the registered keeper's details from the DVLA.