Urgent help needed please

pugger

I still can't copy and paste, if somebody let's me email them and alters it accordingly that'd be great.

bazster

So much for Kev's shiny new GPEOL arguments begged, borrowed or stolen from his fellow knuckle-scraper Barrie at PPS!

Obviously, however, the PoPLA assessor has made a colossal error because it surely can't be the case that a bunch of online anti-enforcement hobbyists knows more about this stuff than the mighty Kev! :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

OK let's start at the beginning of the POPLA evidence, this was the main crux of the GPEOL statement (below) which looked all too familiar to me from one I had helped someone with, against PPS who have WON POPLA appeals with it!


This might help people with PPS or AS parking cases in future I hope:


My bold:

Pre Estimation of Loss
We consider the charge to be a contractually agreed sum, as the contract makes the statement “By parking in contravention of the above terms & conditions of use; you agree to pay the sum of £100”. Therefore we believe that we are seeking to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of a charge which the appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking the vehicle at this location. The contract cannot now in effect be renegotiated.

Please be aware that we currently account for VAT on all payments that we receive from Parking Charge Notices.

After reviewing the signage, if the adjudicator rejects our belief that the charge is a contractually agreed sum, we would state that it could also be deemed to represent liquidated and ascertained damages;

We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge both as a contractually agreed sum and as liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract and contend that it is not a 'penalty' for a number of reasons.

The cost below for parking charge in this instance was established after consideration of the costs which we incur on each ticket issued and these headings below are as per Mr Henry Michael Greenslade's, POPLA Adjudicator, ruling on 18 November 2013, Point 43, against Parking Eye Ltd as to what constitutes genuine pre-estimation of loss.

The genuine pre-estimation of loss is detailed below:

DVLA Fees/Processing costs .......................... £ 4.20
Admin Expenses for this appeal: Stationary....... £ 1.00
Postage ............................................................... £ 3.00
Printing ................................................................ £ 1.50
Loss of P&D Revenue ......................................... £ .50
Attendant staff wages, including employers
NI contributions for this PCN ............................. £ 3.10
Appeals Staff 1 hour (call handling/appeals
writing for this appeal)........................................... £ 9.51
Management at 3 hours (quality control/evidence
gathering/appeal writing/POPLA replies)
for this appeal .................................................... £ 72.00

Sub - total
Genuine Pre-estimation of Loss for this appeal.. £ 94.81
Plus VAT @ 20% £ 18.96

Total loss for this case .................................... £113.77

In addition to the above figure it could be argued that the fee incurred by A S Parking to have POPLA adjudicate in this matter in pursuit of the debt may be added to the above sum @ £33.00 (in VAT); which would give the total loss for this case as £146.77

The above response has been deemed acceptable in many POPLA appeals to date, either in whole or in part; including but not limited to cases: 6660654551, 6860024014, 6860944001.

(the last two are PPS cases won with that rubbish GPEOL statement of crap)!!
(So desperate were AS Parking that they included this as an attachment):
• An example of the Appellants Facebook criticism against our client

Coupon-mad

This is what was emailed to this OP:

To quote AS Parking:
'After reviewing the signage, if the adjudicator rejects our belief that the charge is a contractually agreed sum, we would state that it could also be deemed to represent liquidated and ascertained damages.'

An Operator cannot say the charge is 'either/or' because the original intention is the only important one. AS Parking have (allegedly, seemingly!) copied PPS at Hull Docks new version of a GPEOL statement. If you look at AS Parking's loss statement they have even quoted two POPLA decisions at Hull Docks cases - 6860024014 and 6860944001 which are PPS cases. So here we have AS Parking copying PPS and saying 'the above loss statement worked or PPS so why not us' effectively.

This appellant could use this (below) as part of their rebuttal if they want! I have added some stuff at the end to tell POPLA that AS Parking have copied the GPEOL statement used by PPS at Hull Docks:




REBUTTAL OF AS PARKING'S 'GPEOL' STATEMENT:

The intention of the Operator's charge prior to this parking event was not based on any genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement.

An Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits. To quote Assessor Chris Adamson from a POPLA decision about another coastal P&D car park run in this instance by PPS (Operator 686, being the same firm in the POPLA appeals quoted by AS Parking):
''Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination -
The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. I am not minded to accept this submission.

The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking - as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park without a valid ticket. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park without a ticket, provided he or she pay the charge. In this case, the wording of the sign states that a parking charge notice would be issued, "If you park in this car park contravening the terms and conditions listed below". Clearly, permission to park without a ticket is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach.

The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss. I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made. Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits...

...it seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated.Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.''
Chris Adamson, Assessor (February 2014).

My case is similar, with a ridiculously massaged 'loss statement' suddenly produced to try to magically meet/exceed the amount of the PCN even though they say in fact, it is their 'belief that the charge is a contractually agreed sum'.

It seems apparent to me that AS Parking have 'borrowed' heavily from PPS (Operator 686)'s newly re-written 'loss' statement which has now somehow convinced at least one POPLA Assessor re a charge at Hull Docks. This is despite the fact POPLA files already show from previous cases that the intention in both car parks (AS Parking at Perranporth and PPS at Hull Docks) was always in fact, intended to be a contractual fee. This was admitted by both Operators in the past, until they decided to change their argument to suit what they seem to think will work at POPLA stage. This cannot be allowed.

AS Parking have even quoted two POPLA decisions from PPS (Operator 686). So here we have AS parking using an astonishingly similar manufactured 'loss statement', effectively saying 'this worked for PPS when they changed their argument to suit POPLA, so why not us?' Since AS Parking have relied so heavily on PPS cases, I consider it perfectly reasonable of me to do so as well:

There is a POPLA appeal which is in the public domain, due to be decided around xxth July about PPS, it is code 686xxxxxxx and I respectfully ask the POPLA Assessor in my case, if you are able, to compare the two conveniently-created 'GPEOL' statements in the evidence from both these Operators.

AS Parking have made the same assumptions and errors as PPS do, for example:

- they have included a DVLA look-up fee which never happened (I appealed straight away, there was no DVLA look-up). Just like in the PPS cases.

- AS Parking have even made the same unbelievable claims about '3 hours Management involvement in every POPLA appeal' that PPS have managed to win with, despite POPLA having records of Chris Adamson's earlier decision.

- AS Parking have included staff wages and NI contributions which are all tax-deductible costs of running any business. {Elsewhere in their submission} they even appear to be holding me liable for vehicle depreciation and the costs of setting up their schemes in other car parks around the Country!

- AS Parking have included POPLA related 'work' (and even referred to the POPLA fee) yet this cannot be considered to be applicable to each PCN as a 'genuine pre-estimate'. I understand that under 2% of cases ever get to POPLA stage so it is not appropriate to add the costs of replying to a POPLA appeal at all, to every PCN. This is the same situation as cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs which POPLA already routinely dismiss on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable'. And in fact, the DVLA have recently stated that the BPA has been reminded that Operators cannot recoup the costs of POPLA which must be industry-funded, having been promised at the outset by the DfT to be completely free for the motorist.

The calculations of PPS and AS Parking are so obviously comparable that there has been no genuine pre-estimate of any loss which relates even to this car park, let alone specific to my parking event. The attempt in this Operator's statement to ask POPLA to consider 'either contractual fee or loss' is so reminiscent of PPS' earlier effort - which was thwarted by Chris Adamson in the case I have quoted POPLA's decision wording from above - that AS Parking's case against me must similarly fail.

bazster

Are the numbers identical to PPS' numbers, C-M?

Coupon-mad

bazster wrote: »

Are the numbers identical to PPS' numbers, C-M?

Not sure - I will take a look! It was the wording and 3 hours Management time which gave it away and the fact AS Parking quoted two PPS cases (how would they know unless they have all been sharing their scummy successes?).


EDIT:

Nope not the same exactly but 'reminiscent' as I said.


This is PPS' version in a case they WON!


[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]The genuine pre-estimation of loss set out below refers to costs that we estimated, at the time of issuing the PCN, may be incurred for this individual appeal only: [/FONT]

[/FONT] DVLA Fees / Processing Costs for this appeal 5.00
Admin Expenses for this appeal: Stationery 1.00
Postage 3.00
Printing 1.50
Loss of P&D Revenue for this appeal. [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Bearing in mind that at [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri] the time of issue (pre-estimation) it appeared that parking had not been paid for and that production of a ticket after the event [/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]does not necessarily prove otherwise[/FONT][/FONT]7.00
Attendant and POPLA Appeals staff wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions for this appeal:
Attendants (PCN recording and issuing) for this appeal 2.60
Appeals Staff 1 hour (call handling / appeals writing) for this appeal 9.51
Management at 3 hours (quality control / evidence gathering / appeal writing / POPLA replies) for this appeal 71.65
Legal, Accounting and IT advice for this appeal 1.07
Total Genuine Pre-estimation of Loss for this appeal. 102.33



Both AS Parking and PPS quoted Henry Greenslade's (non)tutorial on GPEOL:

"A genuine pre estimation of loss is just that, a genuine attempt to estimate the costs incurred for each PCN issued"

Hot_Bring

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This is what was emailed to this OP:

To quote AS Parking:
'After reviewing the signage, if the adjudicator rejects our belief that the charge is a contractually agreed sum, we would state that it could also be deemed to represent liquidated and ascertained damages.'

An Operator cannot say the charge is 'either/or' because the original intention is the only important one. AS Parking have (allegedly, seemingly!) copied PPS at Hull Docks new version of a GPEOL statement. If you look at AS Parking's loss statement they have even quoted two POPLA decisions at Hull Docks cases - 6860024014 and 6860944001 which are PPS cases. So here we have AS Parking copying PPS and saying 'the above loss statement worked or PPS so why not us' effectively.

This appellant could use this (below) as part of their rebuttal if they want! I have added some stuff at the end to tell POPLA that AS Parking have copied the GPEOL statement used by PPS at Hull Docks:




REBUTTAL OF AS PARKING'S 'GPEOL' STATEMENT:

The intention of the Operator's charge prior to this parking event was not based on any genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement.

An Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits. To quote Assessor Chris Adamson from a POPLA decision about another coastal P&D car park run in this instance by PPS (Operator 686, being the same firm in the POPLA appeals quoted by AS Parking):
''Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination -
The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. I am not minded to accept this submission.

The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking - as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park without a valid ticket. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park without a ticket, provided he or she pay the charge. In this case, the wording of the sign states that a parking charge notice would be issued, "If you park in this car park contravening the terms and conditions listed below". Clearly, permission to park without a ticket is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach.

The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss. I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made. Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits...

...it seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated.Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.''
Chris Adamson, Assessor (February 2014).

My case is similar, with a ridiculously massaged 'loss statement' suddenly produced to try to magically meet/exceed the amount of the PCN even though they say in fact, it is their 'belief that the charge is a contractually agreed sum'.

It seems apparent to me that AS Parking have 'borrowed' heavily from PPS (Operator 686)'s newly re-written 'loss' statement which has now somehow convinced at least one POPLA Assessor re a charge at Hull Docks. This is despite the fact POPLA files already show from previous cases that the intention in both car parks (AS Parking at Perranporth and PPS at Hull Docks) was always in fact, intended to be a contractual fee. This was admitted by both Operators in the past, until they decided to change their argument to suit what they seem to think will work at POPLA stage. This cannot be allowed.

AS Parking have even quoted two POPLA decisions from PPS (Operator 686). So here we have AS parking using an astonishingly similar manufactured 'loss statement', effectively saying 'this worked for PPS when they changed their argument to suit POPLA, so why not us?' Since AS Parking have relied so heavily on PPS cases, I consider it perfectly reasonable of me to do so as well:

There is a POPLA appeal which is in the public domain, due to be decided around xxth July about PPS, it is code 686xxxxxxx and I respectfully ask the POPLA Assessor in my case, if you are able, to compare the two conveniently-created 'GPEOL' statements in the evidence from both these Operators.

AS Parking have made the same assumptions and errors as PPS do, for example:

- they have included a DVLA look-up fee which never happened (I appealed straight away, there was no DVLA look-up). Just like in the PPS cases.

- AS Parking have even made the same unbelievable claims about '3 hours Management involvement in every POPLA appeal' that PPS have managed to win with, despite POPLA having records of Chris Adamson's earlier decision.

- AS Parking have included staff wages and NI contributions which are all tax-deductible costs of running any business. {Elsewhere in their submission} they even appear to be holding me liable for vehicle depreciation and the costs of setting up their schemes in other car parks around the Country!

- AS Parking have included POPLA related 'work' (and even referred to the POPLA fee) yet this cannot be considered to be applicable to each PCN as a 'genuine pre-estimate'. I understand that under 2% of cases ever get to POPLA stage so it is not appropriate to add the costs of replying to a POPLA appeal at all, to every PCN. This is the same situation as cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs which POPLA already routinely dismiss on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable'. And in fact, the DVLA have recently stated that the BPA has been reminded that Operators cannot recoup the costs of POPLA which must be industry-funded, having been promised at the outset by the DfT to be completely free for the motorist.

The calculations of PPS and AS Parking are so obviously comparable that there has been no genuine pre-estimate of any loss which relates even to this car park, let alone specific to my parking event. The attempt in this Operator's statement to ask POPLA to consider 'either contractual fee or loss' is so reminiscent of PPS' earlier effort - which was thwarted by Chris Adamson in the case I have quoted POPLA's decision wording from above - that AS Parking's case against me must similarly fail.

*** cough *** post #5

Although I will give you that, as usual, you have been far more complete than me !

Coupon-mad

Hot_Bring wrote: »

*** cough *** post #5

Although I will give you that, as usual, you have been far more complete than me !

Whoops, sorry Hot Bring!


Back to the AS Parking case, here's the POPLA appeal decision which this poster wanted to post up:


Appellant
Reference 0611294001
-v-
Athens Security Services Ltd T/A AS Parking Ltd (Operator)

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx arising out of the presence at Promenade Car Park, on xx April 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked displaying an expired ticket.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground. It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator has responded by stating that the amount of the parking charge is a term of the contract and not an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. The operator has also provided a breakdown of the losses incurred by them if the amount of the parking charge notice is held to be an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. I find that it is not permissible for the operator to do this.

This is because when a contract is formed the intention of the parties is fundamental. It is clear that the operator has intended the amount of the parking charge notice to be consideration and not damages.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, after objectively assessing the signage displayed at the site, I find that the signage does not mean that motorists may not display a valid ticket provided that they pay £100, which would make the amount of the parking charge consideration. However, I do find that the signage means that not displaying a valid ticket is not permitted and that a parking charge of £100 will be issued to vehicles. Therefore, I find that the amount of the parking charge does represent damages for a breach of contract.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor






I could be wrong but the bottom paragraph is such a muddle that I am not convinced she quite 'got it' and I wonder if she would have refused the appeal if she hadn't had the rebuttal showing her that the Senior Assessor Chris Adamson had said that the original intention is fundamental and an Operator cannot have 'either/or' a contract of GPEOL - we'll never know.

pugger

The decision has been revoked, an admin error. Because of extra submissions it apparently should have been delayed.......

bazster

Professional much?

Who made the extra submissions, you or Kev? And if it was Kev have you seen them and had the opportunity to respond? If not then complain bitterly to PoPLA about abuse of process.