Humberside Airport PCN

JesterA1

i have my own thread already

Skalaberg

got news today I won my appeal on GPEOL.... thankyou everyone for the help.. it is appreciated.


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.
2 04 April 2014
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.
The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly
displayed, or that the vehicle stopped.
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 Notice to Keeper issued by the Operator does not comply with the
requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
c) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge
notices in relation to this land.
d) There was insufficient signage on site.
e) The Operator has not demonstrated that its Automatic Number Plate
Recognition technology complies with the British Parking Association
Code of Practice.
The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the
alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss
which may be 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. Provided an initial loss can be
demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss,
such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in
responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any
pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a
failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is
for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate
of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs
incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been
caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in thesame position had the parking charge notice not been issued.
The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge
notice, but there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The
Operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been
caused initially by the driver of the vehicle stopping. Whilst I appreciate the
Operator’s submission that there are sensitive security issues at an airport, I am
not minded to accept that this is sufficient to explain an initial loss on which
the charge may be based.
Therefore, taking together the evidence before me, I cannot find that the
Operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

trisontana

Taking a photograph of car and then sending the RK a PCN is a very effecive way of stopping a potential car-bomb!

Coupon-mad

Again POPLA are saying if there's no initial loss (e.g. a parking fee outstanding) then there's no loss at all that can be recovered. So in a free car park we need to use POPLA's wording.

''In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate of loss.''

Was the POPLA assessor Matthew Shaw again, or who was it please? Well done by the way!!

Skalaberg

Chris Adamson was the assessor. and the 'well done' firmly lies with you guys here for all the help you give to people like myself who find themselves facing these unjust fines.

Thankyou once again.

trisontana

Did you raise the question of "admissible land" because of possible airport bylaws?

Skalaberg

Yes.. it was point number two on my popla appeal.. i get the impression the assessor didn't get past point one GPEOL ,

nigelbb

Skalaberg wrote: »

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the
alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss
which may be 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. Provided an initial loss can be
demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss,
such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in
responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any
pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a
failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is
for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate
of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs
incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been
caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in thesame position had the parking charge notice not been issued.
The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge
notice, but there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The
Operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been
caused initially by the driver of the vehicle stopping. Whilst I appreciate the
Operator’s submission that there are sensitive security issues at an airport, I am
not minded to accept that this is sufficient to explain an initial loss on which
the charge may be based.
Therefore, taking together the evidence before me, I cannot find that the
Operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

These exact words could be submitted as the appeal to POPLA for any overstay in a free car park or 'stopping where stopping is not allowed' charge. In these circumstance there is no loss to the landowner & certainly not to the PPC so there can never be a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss that exceeds £0.

martin_jones72

bit confused - if the car park was free then a charge would not have been made... (??)

martin_jones72

sorry bit confused, what does "free car park mean"...surely if it is free then no charge would be liable anyway?? I must be missing something??