POPLA Decisions

pen123_2

I would like to say thanks very much for the advice I gathered on this site, regarding a parking charge by defence systems, one stop shopping centre birmingham ,(incorrect parking within the bay) my popla appeal was successful :beer: based on a punitive charge .Defence systems did not or could not justify their loss. They had tried to threaten me with baliffs, increased charge ect but because of this site I wasn't going to give into their threats, no way .Thank you again:T

trisontana

Armtrac lose on no GPEOL:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87363&st=20

We received a reply to our appeal from PoPLA. Win on GPEOL of course. I will post up the PoPLA letter this evening when home and request a move to completes cases subforum. Thanks to all the posters who have advised me along the way.
I am now supporting other victims of armtrac with their appeals for the same car park/same circumstances and on the forum

NinjaJ1

Won my appeal against CP Plus on GPEOL!
POPLA details as follows (apologies for the spacing issues - it doesn't seem to like copying & pasting!):
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination




On xxxx October 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with


registration mark xxxxxxx for parking for longer than the permitted time.


The Operator’s case is that the site is “2 Hours Free Stay Car Park” as clearly


stated on the signage. The Operator says that the terms and conditions are


clearly displayed on numerous signs placed at the entrance, exit and


throughout the site. The Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was


parked for 1 hours 19 minutes longer than the permitted stay. They have


produced copies of the parking charge notice and the signage. Photographs


of the vehicle taken on the date of the parking event have also been


enclosed by the Operator.


The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of


the excessive charge. The Appellant says that the parking charge 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 a breach of the parking


contract had occurred by parking without displaying a. They state that the


claim is for liquidated damages and they believe that their charges are fair


and reasonable and they have provided a list of costs they incur in issuing


and enforcing the parking charge which include among other costs but it is


not restricted to costs to POPLA, BPA fees, erection and maintenance of site


signage, DVLA fees etc.


I find that the Operator in this case refers to general principles and to other


cases but does not appear to specify the actual heads of loss. I note that


some heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine preestimate


of loss, nevertheless, I find that a substantial proportion of them do


not. In short, the damages sought on this particular occasion do not


substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.




Aurela Qerimi






Assessor


Thanks very much to everyone on MSE who assisted me.:beer:

rayhool

POPLA appeal won on this, UKPC failed to submit evidence.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=64958188#post64958188

Coupon-mad

POPLA appeal won on no GPEOL:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4754025

This was against 'Kernow Parking Solutions'.

Redx

a win against PE at Morrissons , no evidence pack again

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4873583

I have finally received the response from Popla. Here it is:

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.


Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply to my post and guided me through the complicated jargon. For me it was a matter of principle that they shouldn't get away with it.

Stroma

Great result against Parking Eye, this is from last year though I think

avem wrote: »

Hi all,

I've been meaning to post the outcome of my POPLA appeal for months now! Here are the basics......

Parking Eye claim that I parked for 4.5 hours in a Morrisons supermarket in London when I actually visited twice in once day.

Popla appeal submitted 21.08.13
Points appealed:
1. Failed to prove amount demanded is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. Failed to prove a fair and valid contract was formed to justify the amount demanded
3. Failed to comply with BPA code of practice

Popla decision received 22.11.13
Result: My appeal was allowed on point 1 above and the charge was cancelled.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to the success of this appeal, you have no idea how much your input was appreciated :j

Boult22

Already posted elsewhere on here but here goes :-

Thank you for assistance in the below - against G24 (not that bothered about supplying proof (contract) of right to charge.

Appeal upheld.

Thank you guys!! (and gals...)

"Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it it 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 specifically 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."

Thank you for all of your input on this.

TBF - I was expecting more to be made of the GPEOL but it appears that POPLA didn't need to go that far.....

philfuller

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS

PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN 0845 207 7700






10 March 2014

Reference 3860154588 always quote in any communication with POPLA





(Appellant) -v-

MET Parking Services Ltd (Operator)






The Operator issued parking charge notice number MP4174071A 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.




Assessor

brighteyes1984

BIG thanks to all the posts on here I have heard back that my appeal has been allowed on the above. The templates were really helpful and I sent a combined approach - deleting a lot of the detailed stuff and going for a mid-range version! The evidence supplied by VCS as to how they arrive at their GPEOL is marked confidential but the debt recovery aspect the assessor refers to is approximately 40% of the charge referred to in the letter. The whole process has taken 6 months.

This is the reply
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for parking
longer than the maximum period permitted. 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 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 that to tip the balance in its favour.
The Operator has produced a calculation of their genuine pre-estimate of
loss. I am not minded to accept that it is acceptable to charge the Appellant
for a final reminder process and a debt recovery process, a substantially high
part of the whole amount, when the case is at appeal stage and these costs
have not and may not be incurred.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate
of loss.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
I need not decide on other issues.
Marina Kapour
Assessor