GPEoL & Operational Costs! POPLA REFUSED

Well this is a weird one... just got the decision back from POPLA and apparently Nap*r including the Mr Yao case, along with a few sentences about how much time each appeal costs them in wages, was sufficient evidence to suggest the £90 "fine" is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Genuinely confused about this one.

I worded the appeal extraordinarily well, referenced all relevant case laws (which seem to have been overlooked completely), made about 5 points with GPEoL being the main bullet but apparently, weirdly, they decided no. At no point did I even MENTION signage. I explicitly stated that operational costs cannot be included as part of a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I have seen countless other POPLA decisions where completely the opposite has been stated regarding GPEoL and in fact I believe even by the same assessor?

Any further advice? Ignore?

- - - - - -

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx car park, on xxxxxx 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £90 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xxxxxxx 2013 at xxxxxx car park, 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’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid parking ticket despite signage at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so. 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 photographic evidence to support that at the time that the parking charge notice was issued the appellant’s vehicle was not displaying a valid ticket.

It is the appellant’s case that the parking charge notice is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The appellant has also questioned the operator’s contract with the landowner.

In consideration of all of the evidence before me, I find that there is clear evidence to support that at the time that the parking charge notice was issued, the appellant’s vehicle was not displaying a valid ticket. The appellant was therefore in breach of the parking terms and conditions. There was clear and adequate signage at the parking site informing motorists of the parking terms and conditions. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they comply with all terms and conditions of parking.

The operator has submitted a witness statement to rebut the appellant’s submission that the operator has no contract with the landowner. This shows that the operator does hold the authority to issue the parking charge notice. I accept this evidence.

In response to the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has made several submissions which show the consequential losses arising from the appellant’s breach. The operator has submitted that the parking charge notice represents costs including the DVLA fee, approximately 3 hours of staff time spent on the case file, costs incurred in processing the case and the costs of legal advice. I find that the operator on this occasion has shown that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal is refused.

Farah Ahmad

Assessor
«1

Replies

  • StromaStroma Forumite
    8K Posts
    Uniform Washer
    ✭✭✭✭
    Well there is not a lot that can be done as you can't appeal a popla appeal. You have only two choices, either pay or ignore their torrent of letters , and then maybe a small claim after, which you then must deal with. Napier it would appear to have more clout as they own the land in a lot of cases.

    Have you made complaints to the landowner if it's not Napier ?
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    :beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:
  • spacey2012spacey2012 Forumite
    5.8K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    It was only a matter of time.
    Sooner or later the old way of across a table with a district judge is going to be the best way.
    Be happy...;)
  • StromaStroma Forumite
    8K Posts
    Uniform Washer
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes except this is Napier , and in county court in I think Bournemouth they have a higher than average win rate , probably something to do with a certain person at Napier being a district judge at some point, not that I'm saying anything could possibly amiss ;)
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    :beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:
  • spacey2012spacey2012 Forumite
    5.8K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Dont pick Bournemouth, your choice not theirs.
    Be happy...;)
  • pustitpustit Forumite
    197 Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 100 Posts
    The operator cannot own the land in this case because ---

    "The operator has submitted a witness statement to rebut the appellant’s submission that the operator has no contract with the landowner. This shows that the operator does hold the authority to issue the parking charge notice. I accept this evidence. "
  • StromaStroma Forumite
    8K Posts
    Uniform Washer
    ✭✭✭✭
    It goes to the nearest postal address to the defendant I believe, so if you live in that area you will have little choice
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    :beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:
  • hoohoohoohoo Forumite
    1.7K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    Hmm, that's an 'actual loss' not an 'estimate'.

    So if you don't appeal and pay up, this figure is not correct. if you do appeal, the costs are incurred.

    So their real estimate should average out the costs over all tickets.

    However, you were the unlucky sacrificial goat. in every single case after this there will be no need for them to get legal advice because they already have this now. Therefore, in every ticket from now on their cost will no longer be a genuine pre-estimate of loss because there will be a shortfall for the exact amount of the legal advice...unless Napier cook the books and think they can get away with this cost each time.
    Dedicated to driving up standards in parking
  • The_Slithy_ToveThe_Slithy_Tove Forumite
    3.9K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Shinkansen wrote: »
    The operator has submitted a witness statement to rebut the appellant’s submission that the operator has no contract with the landowner. This shows that the operator does hold the authority to issue the parking charge notice. I accept this evidence.
    Did you call into question the validity of their mostly-dodgy witness statements?
    Shinkansen wrote: »
    In response to the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has made several submissions which show the consequential losses arising from the appellant’s breach. The operator has submitted that the parking charge notice represents costs including the DVLA fee, approximately 3 hours of staff time spent on the case file, costs incurred in processing the case and the costs of legal advice. I find that the operator on this occasion has shown that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    That's complete nonsense. At the point in time where the infringement took place, and thus the charge arose, it does not take 3 man-hours to issue a ticket, more like 10 seconds for an automated process to kick in. And why do you need legal advice to issue a fake PCN. If they are claiming their costs around their POPLA appeal, where they make take legal advice, that is not allowed, and not a loss factored into the original ticket.

    Maybe a complaint to the lead ajudicator claiming that their costs were not caused by the actual breach of conrtact.
  • StromaStroma Forumite
    8K Posts
    Uniform Washer
    ✭✭✭✭
    pustit wrote: »
    The operator cannot own the land in this case because ---

    "The operator has submitted a witness statement to rebut the appellant’s submission that the operator has no contract with the landowner. This shows that the operator does hold the authority to issue the parking charge notice. I accept this evidence. "

    Yes which in itself is okay, until it comes to light that it's owned by a limited company associated with the owners of Napier. Not saying it's the case here, I haven't read the thread from post 1 again
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    :beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:
  • Napier indeed do own most of their car parks
    Proud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides