POPLA - Statement by the Lead Adjudicator

trisontana

You sometimes get the ludicrous situation of a very large retail park with a couple of dozen shops, several restaurants and a cinema that has a maximume stay of three hours. How on earth can you do some shopping, have something to eat and then see a film in that time?

rdr

to claim that the overstay caused loss to the retailer the PPC would have to show that:

• your overstay prevented some one else parking, ie that the car park was full.
• that the hypothetical new customer would have spent more than you
• that the ppc has authority to act on behalf of all the retailers possibly affected.

this is a big ask and there are plenty ways to counter this, particularly on a retail park.

Guys_Dad

Unless the PPC has a clause in their contract to pay the landowner any portion of recovered charges, then any landowner "losses" MUST be irrelevant to any two-party dispute between PPC and motorist.

It is up to any landowner to pursue any losses that they have incurred with the motorist themselves.

Further point of course is that when the PPC sends the NTK demanding the full charge, then that charge (say £100 for ease) is the amount that the motorist has to pay if they want to settle up. If the PPC later claims at POPLA that within that charge there is an element of "possible costs if the motorist goes to appeal", then it is quite clear that it can not be a pre-estimate of costs at the time of issue, and, therefore, POPLA MUST find that the charge is not GPEOL.

The correct way to get costs incurred in bringing any case to court or arbitration is to have a separate claim for costs.

I am surprised that this argument has not been used before.

The_Slithy_Tove

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If the PPC later claims at POPLA that within that charge there is an element of "possible costs if the motorist goes to appeal", then it is quite clear that it can not be a pre-estimate of costs at the time of issue, and, therefore, POPLA MUST find that the charge is not GPEOL.

We have seen this before, where a PPC has presented their costs related to preparing the POPLA appeal (manpower costs) as part of their loss. This is clearly nonsense, as no such costs have been incurred at the moment in time they have issued their fake PCN.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

We have seen this before, where a PPC has presented their costs related to preparing the POPLA appeal (manpower costs) as part of their loss. This is clearly nonsense, as no such costs have been incurred at the moment in time they have issued their fake PCN.

And thats the key really isnt it

Guys_Dad

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

And thats the key really isnt it

Exactly the point and should be in all GPEOL-based appeals.