POPLA Decisions

Umkomaas

Do you know, I think that in order for appellants not to be unfairly discriminated against by the fact they've not had prior MSE/Pepipoo advice for their POPLA appeal, all PPCs submitting bundles to POPLA must provide the basics of:

1. A contract between them and the landowner,
2. Confirmation whether the contract principal approves court action, and
3. A genuine pre-estimate of loss, specific to each individual case.

Any (realistic) others?

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do you know, I think that in order for appellants not to be unfairly discriminated against by the fact they've not had prior MSE/Pepipoo advice for their POPLA appeal, all PPCs submitting bundles to POPLA must provide the basics of:

1. A contract between them and the landowner,
2. Confirmation whether the contract principal approves court action, and
3. A genuine pre-estimate of loss, specific to each individual case.

Any (realistic) others?

4. Maintenance records and proof of correct functioning of ANPR systems (if appropriate to the case)
5. Maintenance records and proof of correct functioning of ticket machines (if appropriate to the case)
6. Proof that signage complies with CoP including map indicating all signs and photographs of those signs

trisontana

PePiPoo is reporting that ANPR have lost an appeal. This was because they were unable to produce that so-called contract that requires ANPR to pay the landholder £100 every time somebody breaks ANPR's rules. They couldn't even confirm if such a contract actually exists.

In addition, ANPR had told the motorist that they (the motorist) had lost at POPLA and were demanding to be paid, even though at that stage the POPLA hearing hadn't even been heard.

bod1467

Copied from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62079503#Comment_62079503

I have won the POPLA appeal based on the fact the operator did not prove they had a valid contract - or some such thing, decision below. Thank you everyone for your help and advice.

Copied from POPLA letter:

On 19 February 2013 the Operator’s employee observed a vehicle with the registration mark ****** parked at a residential development at Royal Arsenal known as The Warehouse. At 20:33 the employee issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’).

The Operator submits that the terms and conditions for parking advertised at the site included the condition that a valid permit must be displayed. The terms advised that failure to obey may lead to the issuing of a ‘ticketed excess charge’ (which I refer to, for simplicity, as a PCN). The Operator’s employee observed that the vehicle was parked without permission and issued a PCN.

Amongst other grounds, the Appellant challenged the validity of the contract allegedly in existence between the Operator and the client on whose behalf it enforces parking restrictions at the site.

Taking into consideration all the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Operator has proven this breach for the following reason:

The Appellant challenged whether the Operator had a valid contract to enforce parking restrictions at the site. It would not have been necessary for the Operator to produce the entire contract to address this issue. However, the Operator has failed to deal with this submission in any way. On balance, I can therefore not find that the Operator had a valid contract under which to
issue the disputed parking charge.

Accordingly, the Operator has failed to prove that the PCN was validly issued.

The appeal is allowed.

Does the bold bit have any significance? What would the adjudicator have accepted as a minimum valid submission?

Coupon-mad

Just for the record, that was lost by P 4 Parking because they F 4 Failed!!

Not sure who the adjudicator was yet on the P 4 Parking one but the previous one listed by trisontana in post #81, where PCM lost, was decided by one Matthew Shaw.

Guys_Dad

Another one!

2ddesign wrote: »

Hi All

Thank you very much, to those of you, that helped me win my appeal!:beer:

Here is the Assessor's Determination.

The Appellant submits that he paid for and displayed a valid ticket.

Amongst other grounds of appeal, the Appellant submitted that the parking charge must be genuine pre-estimate of loss so as to compensate the landholder for any likely loss suffered as a result of a breach to the parking contract. The Appellant submits that there was no loss as a result of the alleged breach and therefore the parking charge cannot be a genuine pre-estimate.

The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a PCN would be issued for “failure to adhere” with the parking conditions. The wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The Operator failed to respond to this issue.

Consequently, I have no 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 fail for me to decide any remaining issues.


Martin Shaw

Assessor

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4492343

Umkomaas

Well, well, well. Trev's little gem that he has to reimburse the landowner £100 in liquidated damages has now been well and truly exposed in his latest brush with POPLA - the daft b@gger only went and gave POPLA a copy of his contract with the landowner :rotfl:

I've copied this photo from Pepipoo - and have had to rotate it in photobucket - not sure how it will turn out.

Stroma

Trev must be gutted that he's losing all this money lol, surely he must prove he's making payments to the landowner for each breach? And if he is making payments then those receiving them must account for that money

Umkomaas

Stroma wrote: »

Trev must be gutted that he's losing all this money lol, surely he must prove he's making payments to the landowner for each breach? And if he is making payments then those receiving them must account for that money

Don't thnk he can prove anything unless it's stated in the contract with the landowner. If his signs say that he must pay the landowner, yet his contract does not, then surely that is fraud if he pursues the motorist on those grounds?

DVLA/TS/BPA report time?

Why hasn't POPLA reported this to the BPA?

Umkomaas

Another Pepipoo-supported victory at POPLA. Shona starting to get her head around things. Bad luck Rachel :rotfl:

The Appeal:



The Result: