POPLA Decisions

zzzLazyDaisy

Another win against Parking Eye where they failed to submit any evidence



[xxxx] (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx
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.


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.

Chris Adamson

Assessor

Stroma

This poster not only did the appeal to popla all by himself, with reading the posts on here, but he had 2 tickets from parking eye and they didn't show for both.

So take this as 2 tickets and 2 no shows

om2ae wrote: »

Hi Stroma,

PE didn't send anything in to POPLA at all: -

The wording used in the letter is: -

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.

This is exactly the same for both fake tickets!

M

wae76

Winner:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for parking

outside of the markings of a bay space. The Operator submits that a parking

charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

It is the Appellant’s case that he had parked next to a white line and finds

that was the markings of the bay, therefore he did not breach the terms of

parking.

The Appellant also submitted that the parking charge does not reflect the

Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed

this submission.

It appears to be the Appellant’s case that the parking charge represents a

sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in

advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of

the loss caused by the alleged breach.

The Operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages,

and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s

submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I need not decide on other issues.

noney82

Another win against excel


Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator) The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Peel Centre, Stockport, on 31 March 2013, 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

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination On 31 March 2013 at Peel Centre, Stockport, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site. It is the operator’s case that the appellant did not purchase a ticket from the ticket machine. There is photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also evidence from the operator’s automatic number plate recognition system which shows the appellant’s vehicle, registration number XXXXXXX , enter the site at 18:12 and exit at 19:07. Further evidence from the operator’s Pay & Display database shows that the same vehicle was not registered to have purchased a ticket from the ticket machine. 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 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, these do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I find that a large proportion of the costs listed by the operator do not stem directly from the alleged breach and therefore cannot be included in the breakdown of costs provided by the operator to establish a genuine preestimate of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden. In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Farah Ahmad
Assessor

Stroma

Another win, and another no show for parking eye

Absolutely_Fuming wrote: »

Good news! I had an e-mail this morning from POPLA to say that my appeal has been allowed! However, I didn't win on the usual grounds, I won simply because Parking Eye didn't submit a single piece of evidence to either POPLA or myself and so POPLA had no option but to allow my appeal.

I'm extremely pleased with the outcome, although feeling a little cheated perhaps that the appeal that I spent weeks and weeks honing using all the advice from everyone on here wasn't the main reason for the successful outcome.

Many, many thanks to everyone who has helped me on here. I'm very grateful for all your advice and if it wasn't for all of you on this forum I'd probably have paid up and been a miserable sod for months afterwards!

Here is the text of the appeal decision:

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.

Absolutely_Fuming

I've just posted this on here without seeing that Stroma had already done it for me above!

Good news! I had an e-mail this morning from POPLA to say that my appeal has been allowed! However, I didn't win on the usual grounds, I won simply because Parking Eye didn't submit a single piece of evidence to either POPLA or myself and so POPLA had no option but to allow my appeal.

I'm extremely pleased with the outcome, although feeling a little cheated perhaps that the appeal that I spent weeks and weeks honing using all the advice from everyone on here wasn't the main reason for the successful outcome.

Many, many thanks to everyone who has helped me on here. I'm very grateful for all your advice and if it wasn't for all of you on this forum I'd probably have paid up and been a miserable sod for months afterwards!

Here is the full text of the appeal decision:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx/xxxxxx 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.
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

Craig_Charles

Another win

Complained about unfair charge, authority to issue charge and signs not being BPA complient etc etc..

Submitted my own evidence too just to prove how actually confusing the signs are... Morrisons own branding and signs are pretty much the same colour how was I to know?




XXX (Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

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.

Aaron_Aadvark

PCM (UK)

Another no show,appeal based on no GPEOL.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=82136&st=20&gopid=933316&#entry933316

Coupon-mad

And Euro carparks just rushed to cancel rather then bother to supply evidence to POPLA:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4894043

Barnton 1982 says: ''I made an online appeal on 18/2 and was told case would be heard on or after 27/3.
Then on 27/2 received this email''

Dear Sir or Madam
XXXXXX(Appellant)
-v-
Euro Car Parks Limited (Operator)

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

Redx

this one http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4835679&page=4 is one of the best ever

PE were going to take ken to court, and forum help pulled it back to POPLA where the appeal was successful

a landmark case