POPLA Decisions

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

2 x PE popla appeals after pe didnt bother responding on PPP

Either they messed or have decided not to challange GPEOL

Coupon-mad

MET didn't even bother to send an evidence pack here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4804998


''It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly...

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. ''

4consumerrights

Coupon-mad wrote: »

MET didn't even bother to send an evidence pack here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4804998


''It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly...

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. ''

IMO this may be due to the excellent appeal re-wording by coupon - MET may have taken one look and realised they were well and truly beaten. May be worth linking that one in sticky thread somewhere.

Redx

Excel lose yet another popla appeal for the infamous Peel Centre , Stockport, on not a GPEOL

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4888931

4consumerrights

MET CAVE IN AGAIN HERE ON JOSH's thread after a very comprehensive appeal.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4864966

danny27

got my appeal allowed today against parking eye sound like the didn't even put up a fight as they sent no evidence


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
incorrectly.

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 Adamson
Assessor

if anyone would like to see the full thread it is here - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4810260

4consumerrights

ClassClowns appeal allowed - PARKING EYE BOTTLE OUT AGAIN - did not send any evidence.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4826382


This has now happened several times and IMO could be an indication that they are regrouping their atack following the useful tutoring received. the PPCs had a national meeting in London at the end of January entitled Enforcement of parking charges....

technicaltaff

Just heard from POPLA that my illegal parking fine has been overturned, my appeal allowed. Thanks to everyone who helped me on this site. Chalk up another success to the genuine pre estimate of loss argument.





Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for exceeding the maximum stay period of 30 minutes. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly advertised terms of parking which stated: ”maximum stay 30 minutes”. The Operator’s automatic number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter at
15:37 and exit at 16:34, a stay of 57 minutes. The Operator produced a preestimate
of the loss caused by breaches such as that alleged.
The Appellant disputes that the PCN was properly issued. Amongst other grounds, it is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused to the landowner by the alleged breach. The Appellant challenged the Operator to produce a breakdown of the alleged loss.
The Operator accepts that its parking charge represents damages for breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, it submits that the amount of the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator’s breakdown of the parking charge estimate goes on to specify heads of loss such as “Issuing/printing the ticket and administration time in doing so” and “wages and salaries of staff”.
The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from breaches of the contract in order to be enforceable. There can be no double counting of the same losses under different heads. I find that whilst some heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss, I find that a substantial proportion of them do not.
Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the
Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.
Accordingly, it does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.
Matthew Shaw
Assessor

Ozzyno5

Just got word that my POPLA appeal has been successful, first thing i have done is come back to the forums to say thanks to all that helped me in this righteous victory!
Looks like Excel have taken a look at the detailed appeal and cancelled the charge before it cost them at POPLA stage!
Details below:

Dear Sir or Madam
Mr XXXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXX .
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.

Coupon-mad

I think they are all playing a % game and just not continuing with forum assisted cases. I suspect it's to avoid costs, to avoid being shopped to the DVLA for non-compliant charges (all no GPEOLs lose) to increase their POPLA win % and to try to rain on our parade!


But here we go again, MET have just thrown in the towel within days of a POPLA appeal I helped to write:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4865624

I am just as happy to see that outcome as a decision by POPLA. This is fun!

I wonder if someone at the BPA is going so far as to monitor this forum and pepipoo for written POPLA appeal drafts and popping them into a central portal for the PPCs to run a swift 'plagiarism' check on. That would immediately show the PPC that the appeal is a forum assisted one and they'd then cancel in days.

Maybe I am just thinking with my school teacher hat on re the plagiarism check - but they are ALL VERY quick to cancel these now!