N*pier POPLA Appeal Rejected - Initial Appeal & Response

Guys_Dad

It does suggest, however, that the appeal point on GPEOL when made to POPLA, should add to the operational costs such as wages, uniforms, signs etc something like.

Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

4consumerrights

@Shinkansen pm sent

SevenTowers

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

GuysDad - Where does this come from?

spacey2012

You send POPLA an official complaint of un eaven treatment and when they issue the standard all decisions are final you can take your case to the Local Government ombudsman as POPLA are a London Councils set up and completely ignore the charter they work under.

Make it so.

MikeyTen4

spacey2012 wrote: »

You send POPLA an official complaint of un eaven treatment and when they issue the standard all decisions are final you can take your case to the Local Government ombudsman as POPLA are a London Councils set up and completely ignore the charter they work under.

Make it so.

Just so I know, who are the Local Government ombudsman to approach in a circumstance like this? Are we talking an alternative centralised 'higher power' who can overrule POPLA, or something like your local council's trading standards office (or whatever, as an example)?

POPLA_Assessor wrote:

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.

So all costs relating to and arising from ticketing the vehicle and then contending the appeal. NOT as a result of the parking matter itself. So if the OP hadn't appealed, then the 'loss' the PPC suffered would have been smaller. And if they hadn't issued the ticket at all then they seemingly wouldn't have suffered a loss at all.

Unless I missed it, the OP hasn't mentioned the full circumstances of the car park and the event. But regardless, If POPLA aren't even being consistent in their own decision making process, with the matter of judgement being based significantly on which assessor happens to look at your case, then it just seems to make a circus of POPLA.

I wonder how a court of law would view this, particularly following POPLA's decision.

Guys_Dad

SevenTowers wrote: »

GuysDad - Where does this come from?

It is a suggestion from me to counter the PPC adding any costs subsequent to the parking contravention into their non-discounted charge when they try to justify their GPEOL at POPLA.

spacey2012

MikeyTen4 wrote: »

I wonder how a court of law would view this, particularly following POPLA's decision.

I feel the likely hood of a PPC to do court bears on POPLA'S decision, they know Parking Eye will and a few others.
Would you, as an assessor of a quasi legal Kangroo court want a district judge writing you a letter of reprimand when they read a pile of Quasi Legal junk like they have written here.

They know this PPC are not litigant, so they can risk writing a pile of complete and utter bollox.

nigelbb

Napier do court. They are so proud of this case that they have the transcript on their website. http://www.napierparking.co.uk/assets/Uploads/PDF/Yau-Judgement.pdf

The_Deep

Popla started off with 4 assessors. It has at least 10 today. I googled one of them. Straight out of Law School, probably unable to get a training contract. They have to be very careful what they say.

Shinkansen

ConsumerRights:- I have responded to your PM, thank you.

I am considering appealing to POPLA about this particular Assessor and the resulting decision they have made. I was not aware that further evidence could be submitted once the evidence pack from the PPC was submitted, but I suppose this is not an excuse on my part.

The T's & C's of this particular car park state online:-

(b) If you fail to comply with these requirements, then we
may charge you a £90 Fixed Charge Notice.
(c) The £90 Fixed Charge Notice represents liquidated and ascertained damages. We are entitled to this sum because we will incur a loss as your actions will prevent the efficient management of the Car Park. The amount of the Fixed Charge Notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of the additional expense incurred by us as a result of your incorrect parking. For the avoidance of doubt, your actions will necessitate the expenditure by us of additional resources upon the management of the contract. The amount claimed under the Fixed Charge Notice represents those additional costs incurred up to the time that we have exhausted our own attempts to recover payment from you.
(d) Once we have exhausted our own attempts to recover payment from you, we reserve the right to pass the debt to third party agents for collection. This will
incur additional charges of up to £100, which will be added to the debt owed to us and claimed in any legal proceedings which may be issued against you.
(e) If you breach these Terms and Conditions, a Fixed Charge Notice will be attached to your vehicle, handed to
the driver or sent by post. If payment is received within 14 days of the Fixed Charge Notice being issued, the amount of the charge will be reduced in accordance with the provisions of the Notice.
(f) Payment may be made by one of the methods detailed in the “How to Pay” section of the Fixed Charge Notice. Please quote your vehicle registration number and Fixed Charge Notice number when making payment.
(g) Failure to pay the Fixed Charge Notice within 28 days of it being issued may result in legal action being taken against you for breach of contract, and may result in court proceedings.

In the claim from the PPC that has just been received they state that "It was a contractual term that breaches of the Terms and Conditions of parking would be met with the issue of a Fixed Charge Notice in the sum of £90.00 and further that the Claimant would be entitled to recover additional costs incurred through attempts to secure recovery of debts owned."

The PPC also state in the claim received that "In the alternative, the Claimant seeks liquidated and ascertained damages for breach of contract in the circumstances described above." This follows their declaration that under the PoF Act Schedule 4, section 4(1) they are entitled to ".. recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle". I do believe that in this case the PPC's NtK and NtD were POFA compliant.

Any further advice or suggestions? Greatly appreciated. I will be writing to POPLA now as my partner has been ridiculously stressed since this Claim plopped on the floor.

SHiNK