Humberside Airport Charge

Redx

you will always get the evidence pack from the PPC once popla have given your appeal to them, you can then refute their pack if you need to do so before the case is heard at popla , this is all normal practice

the appeal is usually about 6 or 7 weeks after you have sent the appeal to popla

JesterA1

*I have just thought and realised that my evidence pack is from POPLA and not VCS so they may not have sent my appeal to VCS containing my personal information.

*i still havent had a pack from VCS yet though.

*should i mention to POPLA that on one of the photos it says i was parked in a place where i wasnt?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Could you send me a copy of what VCS have sent you pls, ive sent you my email address, as i would like to see the genuine pre estimate statement

The evidence comes from VCS via Popla

JesterA1

email sent

Coupon-mad

Your evidence pack isn't from POPLA, is it? It's just a POPLA cover sheet.

JesterA1

just relooked and it has been sent by email address POPLA@vehiclecontrol.

so i guess it has come from VCS meaning POPLA has given my information to VCS. Now they have my mobile number, new address and email address. Not happy about this to be honest.

JesterA1

after looking at the GPEOL and with help from kirkbyinfurnesslad, i sent an email to POPLA saying

Dear sir/madam



After viewing the evidence submitted by VCS i have noticed that there are costs on the GPEOL which do not arise from the "breach" itself. The appeal costs may not be incurred as this indicates that at the time of issue as to whether the motorist will pay up straight away or appeal. There is also overheads included which would be there anyway, whether a breach incurred or not. With regards to the debt recovery process this is free to companies, as debt collection agencies collect on behalf of the company for a commission percentage based on the amount of the alleged debt.

got a reply from them just now saying it has been added to my evidence

JesterA1

Hi guys,

I have finally got the outcome from POPLA and they have accepted my appeal!! whooop!!!

Here is what they had to say...

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXXX arising
out of the presence at Humberside International Airport, on 27 October 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 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 Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to the land in question.

c) There was not sufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the Appellant.

d) The land in question is not relevant land for the purposes on the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

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.

Thank you very much for all your help, i cant thank you enough. Now with my new found/taught knowledge i shall be helping others and help stop these companies ripping people off.
Thank you all once again.

Coupon-mad

Fab news! Have you posted it on the POPLA decisions thread yet?

JesterA1

No, i shall do that now CM