POPLA Decisions

Redx

popla win against UKPC at Ashton Retail Park https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4850053

Coupon-mad

Excel lost on no GPEOL:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4783062

poster was thehig, don't think we have this one here yet.

Redx

win against APCOA at Luton Airport https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4813115

not a gpeol

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye beaten again in a Motorway Services POPLA appeal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4893596

Not sure if this was no GPEOL yet - thread to be updated by the OP.

Aaron_Aadvark

Another No GPEOL.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85304

bod1467

And another one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64677987#Comment_64677987

Herer

APCOA beaten with No Landowner Contract at Luton Airport

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4851398

Crabman

Please only post actual POPLA decisions in this thread (see posts above).

Discussions and comments should go here (LINK).

Questions regarding a new case should go in a new thread (LINK).

CapnBob_2

NO GPEOL.
VCS at Humberside Airport.


Reasons for the Assessor's Determination (in part)

It is the Appellant's case that the parking charge doesnot represent a genuine pre-estimateof the Operator's loss, and so is not enforceable.



The signage produced seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach ofthe parking contract. Accordingly, the charge mustbe a genuine pre-estimate of loss.



The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance ofprobabilities. Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not d genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator toproduce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour. The Operator hasproduced a statement which it submitsjustifies the charge asa 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, inthis case, the Appellant's breach of stopping where prohibited. The Operator has produced alist of costs; however, this sum includes a large proportion which is notrelated to the Appellant'sbreach. I do not accept that the parking charge substantiallyamounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.



Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Redx

another win here against VINCI , Adam Street Car Park.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4856973

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.
At 13:34, on December 31 2013, a parking operative observed the Appellant’s
vehicle parked at the Adam Street car park.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by parking without displaying a valid payment.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. He raised a number of
points and one of them was that the entirety of the charge has to 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
failure to park without making a valid payment. The Operator has produced
a list of costs; however, these appear to be general operational costs, and
not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.

Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate
of loss.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.