POPLA - Statement by the Lead Adjudicator

This makes for interesting reading:

http://www.popla.org.uk/statement_28-01-14.htm
Statement by the Lead Adjudicator

POPLA decisions are alternative dispute resolution by way of arbitration and are thus confidential between the two parties concerned. Those parties are the person appealing and the operator who issued the parking charge notice.

POPLA does not release appeal decisions to anyone else, including the British Parking Association (BPA), motoring organisations, campaign groups or members of the public. Suggestions to the contrary are incorrect.

However once an appeal is decided, it is a matter for the parties, subject to any statutory provisions, as to what use they make of the decision.

Many decisions appear almost immediately on motoring and consumer internet forums and blogs.

An issue that had arisen in a number of cases recently, is whether the parking charge amounted to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I myself decided an appeal in which that was one of the matters raised, so as to give guidance to Assessors in this area. As is usual in such cases, the decision was much longer than is normal and set out the background in greater detail.

The decision was sent to the parties in the usual course. It appears that this was one case where the Appellant, unlike many others, did not send it for wider publication. However, it seems that the Operator sent the decision to the BPA. POPLA definitely did not do so.

The BPA have apparently placed the decision on a restricted part of their website, available to their members. This is entirely a matter for them and I trust, but have no access to their site in order to find out, that all the Appellant’s details are redacted.

As far as I am aware, the BPA did not state, as may have been suggested elsewhere, that the decision was some sort of instruction manual to operators on how to win their cases. I would most certainly have objected if they had.

In fact, the Appellant won that appeal.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that there is a possibility that the perception of fairness and impartiality of POPLA may be imperilled. Since its inception, one of my primary concerns has been that Parking on Private Land Appeals was not only completely independent of all parties, but also seen to be so.

It is not uncommon in all tribunals for there to be, from time to time, 'test cases’ on particular issues. In many, but not all cases, these will then be available in the statutory register or in some other form accessible to all interested parties.

Because it is not governed by statutory regulation, POPLA does not have such a public register. I have therefore directed that the whole decision, in redacted form (which means all information which would enable a party to be identified is removed), is to be placed on the POPLA website. The SBV (Appellant) v KMJ (Operator) case is available to view here Opens in a new window
Henry Michael Greenslade
28 January 2014
ORIGINAL MORTGAGE AMOUNT £106,454.00 (Started Sept 2007)
FEB 2020 O/S AMOUNT £2,179.86 OUR DEBT REDUCED BY £104,274.44By Std Regular, Over-Payments & Off-Setting.
BofE +0.19% Tracker Repayment Offset Mortgage Discounted Sept 07-10 then increased to BofE +0.62% until 2027
«1

Replies

  • edited 31 January 2014 at 1:00AM
    4consumerrights4consumerrights
    2K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 31 January 2014 at 1:00AM
    One paragraph stands out here:
    43. DVLA and associated fees for obtaining keeper details; clerical costs there arising, including stationary and postage; legal and other professional advice; wages and salaries of staff involved in that (which may be relatively substantial), together with national insurance and similar related sums; the fee lost by another vehicle not being able to park in the occupied space (where there is a fee); and even loss of revenue at the retail outlet for which the parking is provided, do, if established, fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This list is not exhaustive but strongly indicative of the kind of items that could amount to such a genuine pre-estimate.
    It's a shame our learned friend cannot spell the correct way for stationery and his grammatically incorrect use of there.

    Most of those are also tax deductible business running costs as well.

    I have noted also that Parking Eye have included National Insurance contributions for their staff in other POPLA appeals before this - so this coaching has been tried for quite some time - and obviously NI contributions would be payable whether or not any breach of parking occurs.

    Edit: this is also how some recent POPLA appeals have recently been refused by Farah Ahmed when she failed to accurately assess a GPEOL and swallowed the PPC usage of these arguments so it is important to refute these arguments mathematically if possible when evidence packs come in.
  • StromaStroma Forumite
    8K Posts
    Uniform Washer
    ✭✭✭✭
    I said previously that popla is looking for ways around the pre-estimate of loss, this seems to be the way it's doing this, besides all the tax deductible things above, how can a loss of revenue at a retailer be given, it's not the parking company loss, and how can you determine such a loss? This is fantasy land thinking as you can't determine that at all.

    It's an entirely backtracking statement that shows this appeals service is being controlled by the bpa, and the bpa being forced into decisions by parking eye, basically PE are twisting people's arms for change. We will soon see this biased popla organisation refusing the pre-estimate of loss, the next will be contracts, then inadequate signage.
    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:
  • fisherjimfisherjim Forumite
    4.7K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    How can this cause a loss in a car park that has other spaces available:

    'vehicle not being able to park in the occupied space (where there is a fee); and even loss of revenue at the retail outlet for which the parking is provided'
  • trisontanatrisontana Forumite
    9.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Regarding the "lost revenue" angle, You cannot predict how much a supposed lost customer would have spent in a shop. And that only applies anyway if all the parking spaces are full.

    I could just as well sue a bus company for being late, thus preventing me from buying a lottery ticket and depriving me of millions of pounds.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Hot_BringHot_Bring Forumite
    1.6K Posts
    ✭✭✭
    Some of his statement is complete and utter rubbish.

    For starters, unless they have banks of staff on zero hour contracts awaiting a transgression, then they will be paying wages even if there is no transgression.

    The simple and very basic test is - would the PPC be paying this cost if the driver hadn't even gone to the car park ? If yes then it's not part of the loss, if no then it is.
    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri
  • Zero_GravitasZero_Gravitas Forumite
    570 Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 500 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    fisherjim wrote: »
    How can this cause a loss in a car park that has other spaces available:

    'vehicle not being able to park in the occupied space (where there is a fee); and even loss of revenue at the retail outlet for which the parking is provided'



    In fact, you could just as reasonably argue that a loss to the retail outlet had been prevented; because a potential shoplifter was unable to park in the occupied space, and therefore did not steal from the retail outlet...


    Or am I going a bit reducto ab absurdiam there? :)
  • trisontanatrisontana Forumite
    9.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Equally, by imposing an artificially low time you are allowed to park, then customers might leave the shop early and not spend as much money in the store than if they were allowed to stop (and shop) longer.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Aaron_AadvarkAaron_Aadvark Forumite
    238 Posts
    ✭✭
    hillcats wrote: »

    Many decisions appear almost immediately on motoring and consumer internet forums and blogs...

    It appears that this was one case where the Appellant, unlike many others, did not send it for wider publication.

    Parking Prankster suggests that the number of appeals decided is around 25,000.

    The number published on the internet probably is less than 500.

    Thus Mr Greenslade's repeated use of the word 'many' appears to be overstating the case. Most decisions do not appear on the internet.

    And Mr Greenslade, please not that the organisation which contracts, pays for, and sets the rules for the POPLA service is the BPA Ltd.
    Je suis Charlie
  • surfboy1surfboy1 Forumite
    345 Posts
    What if the overstay was caused by the customer spending longer in the store because he was buying more? Therefore increasing the profit not causing a loss.
  • The_DeepThe_Deep Forumite
    16.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    surfboy1 wrote: »
    What if the overstay was caused by the customer spending longer in the store because he was buying more? Therefore increasing the profit not causing a loss.

    Precisely, see my threat re 2 hours. Wht should a parking company tell shoppers how long they may spent shopping.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides