POPLA Decisions

Shamski

14 March 2014


-v-

APCOA Parking (UK) Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number… arising out of the presence at Birmingham Airport, on 1 December 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark...

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 Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for dropping off/picking up outside of a designated parking area. 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 the Operator does not have authority to issue or pursue parking charge notices on the land in question.

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 discuss other issues.
Marina Kapour
Assessor

Stroma

Another no show from the gutless parking eye, reminds of something yesterday

igmeister wrote: »

Hi,

We recieved our POPLA decision this week, and predictably, we won! Parking Eye offered no evidence.

I've not mentioned the exact location up to now but in order to help any future victims it was Castlegate retail park, Huddersfield.

The details are as follows:


XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEyeLtd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 171067/945957 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.

TheAssessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is theAppellant’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

Many thanks to all those who assisted.:T

Coupon-mad

P4Parking stuffed on no GPEOL as they didn't even send a breakdown of costs at all:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=64985447&posted=1#post64985447

bubs01

I can't post links due to being new but we won against VCS on GPEOL at Liverpool John Lennon Airport - my letter is on here if you search.

(Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ### arising out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, on DATE 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark ######

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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. 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:
a) The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
b) The alleged breach did not occur.
c) The Operator does not have authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land.
d) There have been a number of breaches of the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
e) The Notice to Keeper sent by the Operator does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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 Operator does not dispute 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, once an 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 to tip the balance in its favour.

In this case the Operator has produced a break-down of how it submits it arrives at its pre-estimate of loss. A number of the heads include general operational costs, and costs which do not relate to the breach in question. Further, some of the costs could not yet have been incurred, and could lead to double-recovery.

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 any other issues.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

!

stargazer7

Another win against Excel on GPEOL.

(Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number #### arising
out of the presence at Peel Centre Car Park, Stockport, on ##/##/#### ,of a vehicle with registration mark ####
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 ##/##/####, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark #### for parking in a pay and display car park without displaying a valid pay and display voucher/permit.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car park are displayed on numerous signs situated at the entrance and
throughout the car park. The signage says: “Customers have 15 minutes from entering the car park to purchase a pay and display voucher.” The Operator says that their photographic images show that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked for 65 minutes without purchasing a pay and display voucher. They have produced photographic evidence which illustrates this point and they have produced copies of the parking charge notice 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 parking without displaying a valid pay and display voucher. The Operator has enclosed a pre-estimate of loss statement. They advise that they have calculated a genuine pre-estimate of losses as £103.21.
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, 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.
They state that they have calculated this sum a genuine pre-estimate of loss as they incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these identified. They state that some of these costs include costs of maintenance, issue of the parking charge and costs relating to elements of debt recovery. The Operator also cited some case law in support of their case. I find 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 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

rickrastardly_2

Result.....WIN.
Against SIP.
Assessor Matthew Shaw.

"The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.

It is the Appellant’s case, amongst other grounds, that the £100 parking
charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the losses caused by
the alleged breach. The Appellant submits that the maximum loss would
have been a £2 tariff to park for 24 hours".

That'll do for me!

Custard_Pie

bubs01 wrote: »

I can't post links due to being new but we won against VCS on GPEOL at Liverpool John Lennon Airport - my letter is on here if you search.

(Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ### arising out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, on DATE 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark ######

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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. 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:
a) The charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
b) The alleged breach did not occur.
c) The Operator does not have authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land.
d) There have been a number of breaches of the British Parking Association Code of Practice.
e) The Notice to Keeper sent by the Operator does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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 Operator does not dispute 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, once an 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 to tip the balance in its favour.

In this case the Operator has produced a break-down of how it submits it arrives at its pre-estimate of loss. A number of the heads include general operational costs, and costs which do not relate to the breach in question. Further, some of the costs could not yet have been incurred, and could lead to double-recovery.

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 any other issues.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

!

"Further, some of the costs could not yet have been incurred, and could lead to double-recovery."

Interesting statement this.

I'd also suggest it's not worth bothering posting GPEOL wins unless there is something major highlighted. We all know by now that these always win.

james_33

March 2014

xxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
G24 Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxxxx Retail park, on xx December 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

The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for exceeding the maximum parking time permitted of xxx minutes. The Operator’s automatic number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter the site at xx:xx and exit at xx:xx, a duration of xxx minutes. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms of parking which limited parking to xxx minutes. The Operator has produced photos of site signage in support of its case.

Amongst other grounds, the Appellant disputes that the Operator has authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land and required it to prove otherwise.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if itself is not the landowner, to enforce parking restrictions. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Yet, 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 they believe refutes a submission that they have no authority.

The Operator did not address this ground of appeal. However, I note in its correspondence with the Appellant that the Operator did state state that “The nature of our contract with our client is confidential but will be supplied during any Court proceedings.” However, once the issue is raised by an appellant it is for an operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner or any contract (redacted or otherwise) or other evidence showing that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site.

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.

I must allow the appeal on this ground alone. It does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.

Matthew Shaw
Assessor

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye bailed out again:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=65023704&highlight=#post65023704


and again:


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=65024698&highlight=#post65024698

Maybe they should start phoning a friend or something...

RobinRedBreast

GOT THE GOOD NEWS TODAY
Here's the letter.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ********** arising out of
the presence at Robin Hood Airport, on $$ December 2013, of a vehicle with
registration mark xxxxxxx for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.

It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of the site as set out on signage at the site.

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.

As the appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has produced a breakdown of costs that they incur in managing the car park, however, this is a general list and some of the losses on it do not flow from the appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.

I have looked at all of the evidence and have decided to allow this appeal on the basis 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.
:rotfl:

THANKS AGAIN EVERYONE.