POPLA Decisions

Redx

another win against CEL on not a gpeol

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4856371

Thanks Coupon-mad (and everyone else here).

Results from my Popla appeal below.

--
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.

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

On 3 November 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with
registration mark X for exceeding the maximum parking allowance.

The Operator’s case is that the site is “2 Hours Maximum Stay Customers car
park” as clearly stated on the signage. The Operator says that the terms and
conditions are clearly displayed on numerous parking signs placed at the
entrance, exit and throughout the site. The Operator says that the Appellant’s
vehicle remained at the site for 31 minutes longer than the permitted stay.

They have produced copies of the parking charge notice, excerpt of their
database and the signage.

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 Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice
of rejection they sent because they state that a breach of the car park
conditions had occurred by exceeding the maximum parking allowance.
The burden is on the Operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of loss. Although the Operator has produced a breakdown of
costs incurred in managing the parking site, I find that this is a general list of
costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s
breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

I find that the costs supplied by the Operator were not incurred as a direct
result of the alleged breach, but would have been incurred regardless of
whether the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of the parking site.
I am therefore not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the amount for
the parking charge notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

edward123

Another win/no show against the PPC I hate, ParkingEye.

Its reads exactly as Stroma's #881

Bold is Assessor’s.

PE's PCN issued December 2013 to RK who was a company. Driver appealed.
POPLA decision 26th February 2014.

26 February 2014

XXXX XXXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXXX

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.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

The appellant is the husband of a niece of mine and when I was informed by them they had received one of ParkingEye's fake invoices,(Kent, UK) and being fully cognisant of how to deal with them with the right soft appeal and the winning POPLA appeal(main appeal GPEOL)because of what I have learnt from the regulars on here then what could I do but help. But ALL credit goes to the regulars on here who have posted their learned advices many times and created the 'sticky's. :beer:

Hawkeye_86

In November my car was caught on CCTV at midnight stopped in the lay by/bus stop ( for about 90 seconds) near the entrance to the airport car park. I have been through the two stages of appeal using the excellent advice on the forum and yesterday received the following:-

26 February 2014
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.

As you can see VCS did not bother to submit an evidence pack, My POPlA appeal was based on Kate1899's and one or two other's and my utmost thanks go to them for posting on the forum. Kate stopped in the lay by as I did for a short space of time and her appeal was successful about six weeks ago although on the grounds of lack of evidence of loss. I suspect they knew they would lose and therefore did not bother in my case.

Good luck to all who appeal you will be successful

Redx

a popla win against UK PARKING at Windsor castle ?

no actual details yet though , but a forum win nevertheless

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4867648

Redx

a win against EXCEL at the Peel Centre , Stockport ; here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4907689 for madame_sid

Just found out my appeal was allowed! Apparently insufficient evidence was sent (or maybe it arrived too late!)

Thanks so much to the help on this forum.

madame_sid

Thanks Redx, here is the decision, similar wording to others recently received:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx
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.
Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

Aaron_Aadvark

UKCPS

No evidence

Appeal on no GPEOL

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88371

Aaron_Aadvark

Stroma wrote: »

Aaron

Are you collating the no ppc evidence lark on your OP of this thread?

Yes. It all helps to show what the PPCs are (not) doing.

I created a thread for discussion here to keep this thread only for results.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4907505

Thanks

Aaron_Aadvark

And another no evidence.

VCS at Humberside Airport with multiple grounds.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

4consumerrights

Another NEWBIE success - posted in successful complaints thread
PE no show again

Voldermort wrote: »

Hi,

I recently successfully appealed to POPLA against a ParkingEye parking ticket. My defence owed a lot to Coupon-mad, Umkomaas and others whom provided very clear and helpful advice on this forum – so thank you all. The assessor’s finding was:

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.

Here was my defence which may be of interest to others:

POPLA Reference: xxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxx
PPC: ParkingEye
Parking Charge Notice:xx/xx
Date of PCN: xxxx
Time of Alleged Contravention Date:xxxx

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and appeal against the above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:

1. Neither ParkingEye or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention;

2. ParkingEye has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts;

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between ParkingEye and the driver;

4. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Here are the detailed appeal points:

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park is a service to the community. To apply time limits, charges and install automatic number plate recognition cameras, planning consent is required for this change in the use of land. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained and I put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and charging regime in this car park.


2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking companies have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is ParkingEye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with ParkingEye as ParkingEye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require ParkingEye to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of ParkingEye.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

I have visited the site in question. ParkingEye use standard signs: unreadable and overly-busy, small-font with blue & yellow colouring. The signs are sporadically placed some located below floodlighting and cast in shadow when the floodlights are operating. I believe these signs and any terms and conditions that ParkingEye rely upon were not sufficiently clear and would not been seen, read or understood by a driver in a moving vehicle in circumstances of inclement weather and in the darkness of the early hours of the morning. ParkingEye needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them in these circumstances when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn and inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

A POPLA assessor found in a previous adjudication: “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. ParkingEye must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate parking charge ParkingEye is demanding, rather than the standard parking fee. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

4. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

ParkingEye seek to recover a £100 parking charge (the maximum allowed under the British Parking Association Code of Practice) from the driver for a twenty-four minute stay in the car park. This charge is not commercially justified and is in fact an arbitrary amount that is punitive. The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. ParkingEye must show that the losses are directly related and flow from the alleged breach of contract by the driver.

In their letter to me of xxxx ParkingEye maintain that its charges have been held to be enforceable in previous cases; however, they have not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of the loss applicable in every case in different car parks. ParkingEye also describe the significant costs in managing the car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions. They also state costs associated with maintenance of the site signage, monitoring and maintenance of the site signage and cameras, employment of office-based staff and memberships fees etc. This justification is on the basis of general business costs incurred through their provision of car park management services rather than actual loss directly caused from the alleged breach. In paragraph three of the same letter at the bottom of page three, ParkingEye openly admit that their estimate of cost in each case is actually £53 and that the charge they are seeking to impose in this case has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. This is clear evidence in ParkingEye’s own words that the parking charge claimed cannot be a true pre-estimate of loss.I maintain that the parking charge is not commercially justified and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and so is not enforceable.

This concludes my appeal.