Parking charge notice is GPEOL likely to be case for appeal?

surfboy1

bigtoe99 wrote: »

Thanks for quick responses
The car park was not free, the cost would have been £2. They did offer a discounted fee of £50 if paid within 15 days. Signage was inadequate in the driver's opinion but obviously this is contested by the PPC with photographs showing where the signs were.

They have broken costs down as follows:
DVLA look up £3.50
Postage and printing, back office cost per PCN £5
Admin cost of labour for processing this notice and initial appeals £25
Under payment of parking £2
Total £35.50
At the point that you " broke the contract ", they claim that you owe £100. According to their breakdown of costs, at this point it could be argued that you owe £3.50 dvla fee,postage and printing £5 (at a push),£2 parking fee and admin costs of approx. £5(being generous). total £15.50 ! and they demand £100 from you. !!! £50 or even £30 is not a GPEOL.
I suppose in theory these things could be considered GPEOL?

POPLA fee £27
Admin cost for subsequent appeals and appeals to POPLA £35

I am very grateful for the responses but really want to have a good chance of winning if I am going to persue this with POPLA. As you say this PPC tactic is based on new POPLA guidance so I am concerned that Assessors may accept these costs as GPEOL.

Is there any documentation that defines GPEOL anywhere that I could look up?

Thanks again everyone!

They have broken costs down as follows:
DVLA look up £3.50
Postage and printing, back office cost per PCN £5
Admin cost of labour for processing this notice and initial appeals £25
Under payment of parking £2
Total £35.50
At the point that you " broke the contract ", they claim that you owe £100. According to their breakdown of costs, at this point it could be argued that you owe £3.50 dvla fee,postage and printing £5 (at a push),£2 parking fee and admin costs of approx. £5(being generous). total £15.50 ! and they demand £100 from you. !!! £50 or even £30 is not a GPEOL.

4consumerrights

@Bigtoe99 -have you not spent a few minutes reading the Newbie thread, how to win at POPLA and some of the POPLA wins -then you may be a little bit more confident.

I wonder when this lot joined the BPA as their website doesn't display the BPA logo?

And the lease agreement may not be all that it's cracked up to be anyway.

http://www.londoncarparks.co.uk/leases.php

Leasing a car park for a period of time with many large retail outlets that you describe would cost quite some considerable cash. The company directors have opened and dissolved and are trading in many different companies with the similar initials.

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/904133411

POPLA fee £27
Admin cost for subsequent appeals and appeals to POPLA £35

Who are they trying to kid with those fees - subsequent LOL - POPLA no charge to motorist.

Many of the costs are also tax deductible any way.

I have also heard BOD that some companies are charged a 65p processing fee for the DVLA - though it still doesn't add up (unless they are rounding up VAT ?)

bigtoe99

Thanks for your comments.
The company literature displays the BPA logo and they are listed as members. They have sent a copy of an HM Land Registry document stating that they lease the land along with PT Southern Ltd and the lease runs from 1998-2020.

I have spent a lot of time looking at POPLA decisions and other cases. I am concerned because there doesn't seem to be a definition of GPEoL by POPLA and most companies that lose at POPLA do so because they argue that GPEoL are comprised of costs such as maintaining number plate detection machines which are obviously not related to one specific case.

In this case the company have 'in theory' quoted costs that relate to this specific case as opposed to general running costs.

The result of the case below is what worries me as this assessor permitted office staff time as GPEoL and the company owned the land. It seems like a similar decision could be taken by an assessor in my case.

Shinkansen 29-11-2013, 7:26 PM
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

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Right stop worrying and going over the same ground over and over again

Just do as advised, put your popla appeal together "stop saying you are "worried"", post it up, will let you know what we think and when you get the evidence pack from lps come back

Even if you loose it doesnt mean you have to pay

Give me strengh

Browntoa

Yes , ignore all the scare tactics and concentrate on the advice here

bob?_3-2

Something is not right here.

bigtoe99

Thanks. I'm not trying to be difficult and I will start putting together the POPLA appeal. BUT...

You haven't responded to my question about the case Napier v Shinkansen 29-11-2013 (similar to mine) that was lost by the appellant at POPLA because office staff time was considered by the assessor as GPEoL. Is there any difference between this case and mine? I'm not sure there is. So I think my concerns are justified.

Most cases that have been won at POPLA on GPEoL have won because the PPC stated that their losses were due to running costs. This case is different - the PPC are not using that as their basis for GPEOL.

I'm trying to have a discussion about whether GPEOL would be accepted by a POPLA assessor in this case. Maybe nobody knows the answer to that as it may not have happened before but any insight would be helpful.

@kirkbyinfurnesslad
"Even if you loose it doesnt mean you have to pay"

IF I do lose they could take me to court and I could lose there and then have to pay a lot more than £30. Unlikely perhaps but it is reasonable for me to be concerned that this could happen!

Thanks again to all who have responded. I am very grateful.

Browntoa

It still had to be a GENUINE estimate of costs , we have proved that it's not in some of the replies

4consumerrights

Bigtoe99 - you have the option to appeal to POPLA - it is up to you if you want to go that way or not. Dwelling on past cases won't help you. If you're that worried about losing then pay the reduced fee.

@KIFL pm sent

bigtoe99

I'm not 'dwelling' on past cases. I'm taking your advice from above by looking at previous POPLA decisions!

I would like to get an opinion from those who have more experience in these matters than I do as to whether an appeal to POPLA is likely to be successful in my case. This will then help me decide whether I am better off paying the reduced fee or appealing.

Thanks again for your help and advice. It is appreciated.