We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA - Statement by the Lead Adjudicator
Comments
-
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?What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
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.
0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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 itProud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T0 -
kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »And thats the key really isnt it
Exactly the point and should be in all GPEOL-based appeals.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards