Liverpool Airport VCS

morrisoscar

My son has received his Popla date - mid Jan.

morrisoscar

1) Reason for ignoring the first appeal sent within 28 days is that it did not name the driver.

2) A road is a car park because the owners say it is, so POFA applies.

3) BPA have confirmed that signs can be read and agreed to whilst driving at an average speed at the entrance.

4) There are on bye laws.

5) They have the full support of the police for what they do.

6) Some Losses caused to a PPC by a driver stopping include amongst other things the cost of employing a parking attendant, installing and maintaining ANPR, cost of dealing with an appeal to them, cost of dealing with a second appeal to them, losses made by allowing appeals, loss of income from drivers who can not be traced.
These are clearly losses caused by a car allegedly being stopped on the road (sorry car park).:rotfl:and according to a PPC are defiantly not running costs so we have to pay then?

Redx

all the points with which they lose at popla or court then

Umkomaas

2) The road is a car park because the owners say it is, so POFA applies.

A car park where no cars are allowed to park - go figure :rotfl:

morrisoscar

Redx wrote: »

all the points with which they lose at popla or court then

PPC attempt at the triumph of hope over experience then?

morrisoscar

Job done GPEOL :j
(Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ***** arising
out of the presence at John Lennon Airport, on 22 May 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
On 22 May 2013 at John Lennon Airport, 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 stopped her vehicle in a no
stopping area despite signage erected at the site to prohibit this. 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 stopped in a no stopping area.
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 pre estimate
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

Thanks to coupon mad for edit/ strengthening appeal.:beer:

Redx

can I ask that you add this to the sticky thread , successful popla decisions please ?

and well done in winning, and all the good advice you received too

one day they will get the message that what they are doing is wrong and continually losing at popla should hopefully teach them that their business model is flawed

bod1467

Has someone had a word with this assessor and told her (him?) what GPEoL actually is? (It's this same assessor who has denied a couple of recent POPLA appeals, allowing the PPC's GPEoL justification. Lesnmandy for example).

morrisoscar

Interesting that POPLA say my son was driving as the appellant though the driver has never been named and also changed his gender for him.:rotfl:Must be a new service.

Redx

clearly yet another set of errors on this assessors part, there have been one or two complaints gone in already due to those gpeol problems mentioned earlier

some retraining or supervision required ?