POPLA Decisions

Nile

Apologies for the duplicate (see my 'Roll over, lay down and die' thread):j:j

I send a BIG THANKS to everyone who helped me.:A


The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxx arising


out of the presence at on private land, of a vehicle with registration


mark xxxx.


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


The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising out of


the presence at on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxx.


The Appellant has made a number of submissions, including the fact that the


parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


The Operator has not sent in an evidence pack to contest the case but they


have emailed to say the following: “Please be advised ECP will not be


providing a POPLA evidence pack regarding case xxxx. The basis of


appeal to POPLA has no reference to the original appeal received. Please


close the case”.


As the Operator has not addressed the Appellant’s points, I must allow this


appeal in favour of the Appellant.


Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.


Nozir Uddin


Assessor

Redx

victory for siross against PE at the infamous Fistral Beach , no evidence pack submitted

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4812014

Update.

I WON! Massive thank you to everyone on the thread and wider forum who helped with my appeal it is genuinely very much appreciated!

Please see below for an extract from the letter, it looks as though Parking Eye didn't even bother to be honest:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXX

arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX

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.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils

Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

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.

Redx

victory for scarlett against VCS at Estuary Business Park , Liverpool (not a GPEOL)

Copy of POPLA decision XXXXXX (Appellant)

-v-

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXX arising

out of the presence at International Business Park, Liverpool, on 22

November 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXX.

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

The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for stopping in a nostopping

area. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in

compliance with the advertised terms which stated “No Parking at Anytime”.

The Operator’s employee recorded the vehicle on CCTV stopping in a nostopping

area. The Operator has produced CCTV footage of the Appellant’s

vehicle and photos of site signage in support of its case. The Operator

produced a Pre-Estimate of Loss Statement in support of its case.

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 economic loss caused by the

alleged breach. The Appellant submits that he caused no 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 as “we incur significant costs

in ensuring compliance to the stated Terms and Conditions and to follow up

on any breaches of these identified.” The Pre-Estimate of Loss Statement

goes on to specify heads of loss such as the cost of patrolling the site, issuing

letters to appellants and of electing not to pursue some PCNs (‘write-off

allowance’).

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from breaches

of the contract in order to be enforceable. 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

Redx

victory against CEL for fiftydd on not a gpeol at

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4901068

POPLA appeal Just had notification that my appeal against CIVIL ENFORCEMENT Ltd has been upheld.
The grounds of allowing the appeal were that 'The Charge Not Being A Genuine Estimate Of Loss'. The operator could not prove that it is.

I used quite a few arguments and points of law, but the above was what it was upheld on. I downloaded a 2013 copy of B P A regulations and recommendations manual, went to the car park where the whole thing started and took quite a few photographs, compared them with the manual recommendations and with point of law. I worked it out that C E L were only in compliance with 1% of the BTA regulations and Traffic Law regarding car parks.
I also visited PEPI POO and sifted through their information.
I even contacted the CEO of the super market who the car park serves and pointed out the discrepancies with the car park management company. They are still investigating.
An example of C E L's arrogance was, the B P A's recommendations of notices being either white on black or black on white. Blue on yellow was not recommended because people with colour impairment vision would have difficulty reading it. All of C E L's notices are blue on yellow or yellow on blue. A blatant disregard for the B P A recommendations and that was just one of them.

Thanks to all input from the forum, even the negative ones as they acted as a negative guide, if you follow me.

john21_2

Another POPLA win against NCP. Station carpark, attempted to pay but Ringo didn't accept, despite genuine effort to pay.

Appealed using:
1) Prompt payment discount only 33.3% not 40%
2) GPEOL argument

Upheld because NCP failed to provide evidence to support breakdown of losses incurred.

Many thanks to all contributors to this very useful thread.

Coupon-mad

A win for 'LCElsie' v ParkingEye who threw in the towel again at POPLA stage:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4838706

ILoveFreeParking_2

I know the UK economy is improving but please don't waste your money on Parking when you can enjoy Free Parking at Parking Eye :j

************************************************
xxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx
arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration
mark xxxxx.
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
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

Coupon-mad

Same as reported here in another PE (Town Quay) case, by stanne:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165


HTH

Redx

another win against VCS at Humberside Airport , not a gpeol for stopping on the road

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4826687

Humberside Airport, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, Stopping In The Roadway Where Stopping Is Prohibited

Reason for the Assessor's Determination

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed this submission.
The signage produced seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
Accordingly, as the 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 breach of stopping.

The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, this
sum includes a large proportion which is not related to the Appellant’s breach. I do not accept that the parking charge substantially amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Marina Kapour
Assessor

Bannister_Sliding

Looks like it didn't get to the stage of POPLA having to make a decision. Thanks for everyone commenting on all these threads, I wouldn't have even thought to appeal if there hadn't been all this on here! Thanks coupon-mad, Stroma, Guys Dad and Umkomaas for your helpful comments on my thread.
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic] Reference *******
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]always quote in any communication with POPLA
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Dear Sir or Madam
*********(Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number *******, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark ****** .
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
[/FONT][/FONT]