POPLA Decisions

Aaron_Aadvark

A loss! The appeal was based upon mitigating circumstances, against forum advice.

"I appreciate that the Appellant did not intend to delay making payment to park on the occasion in question. However, it remains the case that the vehicle was parked for 60 minutes but that only 40 minutes of parking were paid for. It was incumbent upon the Appellant to pay for sufficient time to cover the duration of parking at the site.

I find that, by not paying for the entire duration of parking, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge in accordance with the terms displayed."

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4803640

Stroma

Another no show by no balls parking eye

mn1999 wrote: »

Thanks everyone. POPLA has allowed my appeal.


ParkingEye did not even bother to send them any evidence this time.


Strange? Or they are clever now to save them some paper and postage?


Cheers!:beer:


Below the message from POPLA:


"It is the Appeallant'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, not 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"

Stroma

Yet another no show from no balls parking eye

superbuilder wrote: »

Hey guys,

Just an update on the POPLA...

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

Job well done, thanks guys

Hypercube

I have just won two POPLA "appeals" against APCOA regarding parking in the short stay car park to the north of Reading railway station. The text of my appeals, and that of the decisions (except in regard to the dates of the "tickets"), are the same in both cases.

My appeals:

1) The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor, not simply name them on it. This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is[...]". The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. APCOA have failed to do this and thus have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

2) The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by APCOA Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because APCOA Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).

3) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

4) I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS v HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

5) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise, so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

6) Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent that could impact on a third party customer.

7) Railway land is not "relevant land" as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from "keeper liability" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Strategic Rail Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

And the POPLA decisions:

At [dates], a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the Reading MSCP.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by not making a valid payment.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points the Appellant raised was that the amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss and that the Operator has not quantified their alleged loss.

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 mustrepresent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.

The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any
charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it.

The Operator has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine preestimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Thanks to the posters on this site for the advice!

Coupon-mad

A perfect summary of what can be achieved by a newbie without even needing a thread!

zzzLazyDaisy

This thread is for POPLA successes, please delete your post and read the first thread on this forum by coupon - mad which gives you a thorough grounding in the ins-and-outs of fighting off these charges. If you still have questions, start your own shiny new thread and someone will be along to help.

Daisy

MoneyTooTightToMention

WIN! POPLA Appeal upheld against Horizon Parking Ltd on grounds of no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

First of all, thank you very much to everyone who has posted advice on this forum - without all of these examples of people challenging unfair tickets, I would likely have just given in and paid! Thank you!

The parking company was Horizon Parking Ltd and the car park in question was the one outside Sainsbury's in Plymouth.

My appeal: (only including the key point which the Assessor upheld for brevity)

3) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In their correspondence to me on [DATE], Horizon Parking Ltd alleges that a breach of the terms and conditions of parking has occurred and that the charge levied is for “liquidated damages”; in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I therefore require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time.

And the Assessor's response:

On [DATE], a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark [REG] for parking in a pay and display car park without displaying a parking voucher.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car park are displayed on numerous signs located at the entrance and throughout the car park. The signage says: “Pay and Display Car Park” “clearly display the first part of your voucher within the vehicle.” The Operator says that their photographic images show that the vehicle was parked
without displaying a parking voucher. They have produced photographic evidence which illustrates this point and they have produced a copy of the parking charge and their signs.

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 correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by not parking in an allocated parking bay. They state that they consider the amount on the parking charge as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages. They have provided a list of the costs they
incur in issuing and enforcing the parking charge which include among other costs but it is not restricted to costs to preparation and sending of the parking charge notice, DVLA fees, wages and salaries etc. They advise that the sum and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner. They also cited some case law to support the
statement that their parking charges are fair and reasonable.

In this present case the Operator has sought to justify the parking charge amount as being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I find however, that these costs were not incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would have been incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached the term 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.

:):)

Coupon-mad

Another perfect summary of what can be achieved by a newbie without even needing a thread!

Coupon-mad

On pepipoo, G24 couldn't be bothered to show POPLA any landowner authority:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=86518&st=20&start=20

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for
exceeding the maximum stay of 90 minutes permitted. 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;
- Signage was inadequate,
- The Operator does not have authority to issue parking charge notices
on the land in question,
- The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and
- No contract was made with the driver.
Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking
company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.
The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the
land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking
charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.
Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
I need not decide on other issues."

trisontana

Trev (ANPR) caves in :-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88502&hl=

ANPR advised POPLA within 4 days that they wouldn't contest the appeal - which seems to be a common theme now if you submit a 'proper' GPEoL argument, although I think they were royally stuffed on the signage as well.