POPLA Decisions

bestpud

I didn't post a thread but put my appeal together with information taken from the appeals sticky thread and won. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed advice and template appeals! :beer:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for parking for longer than the maximum time permitted. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly advertised terms of parking which limited parking to a maximum of 120 minutes. The Operator’s automatic number plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) observed the Appellant’s vehicle enter the site at 10:52 and exit at 13:18, a stay of 146 minutes. The Operator produced a Pre-Estimate of Loss Statement.

The Appellant disputes liability for the parking charge. Amongst other grounds, it is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the economic loss caused by the alleged breach. The Appellant submits that she caused no loss whatsoever.

The Operator accepts that its parking charge represents damages for breach of the parking contract. It submits that the amount of the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as “we incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the stated terms & conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified.” The Statement specifies heads of loss.

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from breach of the contract in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Any consequential loss incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the PCN and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be recovered.

The Appellant submitted that there was no loss. The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a PCN. However, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that parking in this free car park for longer than the maximum time permitted did not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any estimate of loss.

Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

I must allow the appeal on this ground.

Matthew Shaw
Assessor

Stroma

Nice one

Umkomaas

Great to see the result from one of the few who used the forum as intended - a self-help resource with so much information to do this themselves.

Well done bestpud (creme brûl!e or bread and butter pudding??).

Computersaysno

Shows that bestpud is not a person to be trifled with.

Computersaysno

I guess The PPC is just a cowardy custard??

Computersaysno

The PPC got their just desserts [sic].

CH_7

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4827033

"CH 7 (Appellant)
-v-
UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

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 parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxx, on xxxxxx, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator’s case is that the amount of the parking charge notice does represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator has produced a ‘generic’ list of expenses/ losses incurred by them. This list, amongst other things includes expenses such as “weatherproof wallet”, motor and travel expenses, POPLA costs and debt recovery costs. The appellant’s appeal has not yet reached the debt recovery stage. I find that a substantial amount of the list is not specific to the appellant’s case. It is not up to the assessor to pick and choose expenses/ losses out of the list provided. The operator should provide an accurate estimate of losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach in order to justify that the loss incurred by them as a result of the appellant’s breach is a genuine pre-estimate.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that a substantial amount of the losses included do not relate to the appellant’s breach. I also find that the operator on this occasion has not shown that the amount of the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."


:T Great work everyone!

Computersaysno

POPLA is very quiet wrt gpeol losses at the moment.......wonder what the BPA is going to do to 'sort this out'.

tightfellie

Decision: Appeal Allowed!

Assessor:Farah Ahmed

Date: 19 March 2014

Successful Grounds: No proof that parking charge genuine pre-estimate of loss

PPC: Total Parking Solutions Ltd.

Location: Crewe Heritage Retail Park

Another success! Thanks for all the advice - couldn't have done it without you.

I appealed on basis of:

- not genuine pre-estimate of loss
- inadequate signage (driver entered through "exit")
- incorrect process (they tried to make me pay up after my request for appeal)
- authority to issue tickets:

Abstract from POPLA decision as follows:

"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 list of costs incurred, these do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator may only include costs that reflect losses which have resulted directly as result of the alleged breach. In addition, the operator has not included a breakdown of the costs listed. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Aaron_Aadvark

UKPC Another No GPEOL

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4888884