POPLA Decisions

AoD

So following my earlier post in this thread, we have just had the latest POPLA result in for another neighbour I have been helping. Again, it looks like PCM threw in the towel when they saw the POPLA appeal (no GPEOL, no contract, etc etc)

At the same time both myself and another neighbour had our appeals upheld by PCM! I've been going in with fairly hard appeals to PCM and it's obviously working. Something unheard of pre POPLA! That's another £300 they're not getting their hands on :-)

Having read some recent similar PCM decisions it does seem that PCM know when they see a winning appeal and have decided it's better to cancel it than lose £30 at POPLA!

Coupon-mad

A POPLA win against VCS at John Lennon Airport, no GPEOL, and by FARAH AHMAD as well!


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85860&st=20


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On XXXXXXX 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 his 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 addressed this, I find that they have failed to establish a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Farah Ahmad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Assessor

bod1467

Has she (guessing) finally come to her senses?

Coupon-mad

CEL threw in the towel at POPLA when sussed trying to charge for a double visit:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4887068

trisontana

Like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet another no GPEOL for Parking Eye:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87611&hl=

Stroma

A loss, but take a look at the wording used, take note people going to popla, don't use mitigation! This could have easily been a win if they followed advice given to them

maverickpianist84 wrote: »

Stroma, glad to. Appeal as sent to POPLA on 20/07/13:

Dear POPLA The reason the TPS notice had been issued was that I was "observed leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained parked on the premises" and that "the vehicle was parked between 13:35 and 14:07". Whilst I did leave the site, albeit briefly, there is nothing in their displayed rules and regulations to say that a customer of Halfords may only shop at Halfords and nowhere else. My intention was to quickly get some items from the nearby Asda, return to put the shopping in the car and then buy the items I needed at Halfords. The alternative was to first drive to Halfords, then Asda and return to Halfords which is obviously a less efficient journey. The only time I left the Halfords car park was on my arrival at 13:35, as the notice says, and therefore I conclude the motive behind issuing the notice wasn't the length of time I stayed in that car park per se, but rather that I had not bought anything in the Halfords store. I am suspicious of this notice for two main reasons: (1) I returned to the Halfords car park before 14:07 to find the notice issued. (2) When I left the car park, there was nobody walking around. So how could a parking attendant possibly know that I had left the car park? I acknowledge that my appeal is a couple of days over the 28 day limit and I apologise for this as I had been away on business. I would be grateful if you could still consider my case. Sincerely...

===

Also sent, again on 20/07/13:

I would like to add some information to my appeal that was recently submitted, and apologise for not including this originally.

Vehicle Reg: xxxx xxx

Additionally, I am contending that anyone claiming damages for breach of contract must "mitigate their loss", that is, they must do what they can to reduce their losses. TPS is effectively claiming that a visit to a neighbouring supermarket cost them £90, but of course they could have reduced that loss to zero if their employee who observed me leaving the site had simply called after you and warned you of the consequences of leaving. Therefore, they failed to mitigate their losses.

===

POPLAs final decision was sent 20/12/13:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxx arising
out of the presence at Halfords, Sutton, on 18 May 2013, of a vehicle
with registration mark xxxxxxx.
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
£90 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
operator.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 18 May 2013, a Silver xxxxxxxxx with the registration mark xxxxxxx was observed in the Halfords Car Park.
It is the Operator’s case that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the car park and at entrance, and by leaving the premises the Appellant caused a breach of the following condition; “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections regularly carried out”.
The Appellant’ case is that he was a customer of Halfords but also visited the nearby Asda Supermarket. The Appellant submits that “there is nothing in their displayed rules and regulations to say that a customer of Halfords may only shop at Halfords and nowhere else”. The Appellant further adds that the Operator could have mitigated their loss by the parking attendance calling the Appellant back and warning him of the consequences.

I understand the Appellant’s frustration and the explanation that the
Appellant was visiting both stores on the occasion. However I must explain the signs at the site that state “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections regularly carried out” –means that when parking at this car park, you must not leave the premises, i.e the Halfords store or the car park, and if you wish to use any other stores you may not leave your car parked in this car park. I further add that when parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility, not the parking attendant’s, to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. The parking attendant is not required to speak to motorists and explain the terms and conditions of the car park when they are clearly displayed.

Considering all the facts before me, I find that, by failing to abide by the
terms for parking, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice.

Unfortunately, I must refuse this appeal.

Marina Kapour
Assessor

Coupon-mad

Premier Park lost this case on no GPEOL:


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85925


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 28 October 2013, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark PJXXXXXX for parking in a pay and display car park without displaying a valid parking voucher. The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car park are displayed on numerous signs located at the entrance and throughout the car park. One of the parking rules requires that ‘a valid pay and display voucher must be displayed at all times.’ The Operator says that their photographic images show that the vehicle was parked with no valid pay and display voucher on neither display nor he had payment been made via ‘Ring Go’ on the date of event. They have produced photographic evidence which illustrates this point and they have produced a copy of the parking charge, terms and conditions and their signs.

The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of the excessive charge. The Appellant says that the parking charge 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 each appeal will turn on its own facts but it is clear that a genuine pre-estimate of loss need not be a detailed estimate for each particular case.

They state that it is not the specific loss caused by the actual breach but may include loss incurred or loss that might reasonably be incurred. Furthermore, they accept that it cannot include sums that are really the general business costs of the Operators parking operations. They state that what is acceptable in assessing this loss are the following: DVLA and associated costs, loss of revenue at a retail park, wages and salaries of staff involved. They say that the courts have accepted commercial justification for charges in this regard.

Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find that the Operator in this case refers to general principles 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.

Coupon-mad

I don't think we've seen this one? JAS lost on 'no GPEOL':


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80914

trisontana

It seems that Parking Eye just gave up on this one:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84707&st=20&start=20

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

Chris A******
Assessor

Redx

NW (LTD) lose on no authority

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4808665 post 99

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for parking in a disabled
bay without displaying a valid disabled (‘blue’) badge. The Operator submits
that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly advertised
terms of parking which required vehicles parked in disabled bays to display a
valid blue badge. The Operator provided photos of site signage and a copy
of a contract for the enforcement of parking restrictions.
The Appellant disputes that the PCN was properly issued. Amongst other
grounds, it is the Appellant’s case that the Operator does not have the
authority of the landowner to enforce the PCN as alleged.
That the Appellant parked in a marked disabled bay without displaying a
valid blue badge is not disputed. The Appellant submitted that the Operator
had no authority to enforce such a restriction. Upon examination of the
evidence presented by both parties I make the following findings:
1) The terms and conditions signage produced by the Operator required
display of a valid blue badge whilst parking in a disabled bay;
2) The contract between the Operator and the landowner specifies the
conditions / restrictions on parking control or enforcement operations
at the site in question as: “permit holders only during college hours /
vehicles must be in designated spaces at all times”;
3) There is no evidence that the Operator had the authority on behalf of
the landowner to issue a parking charge for failure to display a blue
badge whilst parking in a disabled bay.
I accordingly I find that the PCN was not properly issued.
The appeal is allowed on this ground alone.