Urgent help needed please

pugger

Thank you, its been sent. Hopefully we will see an end to this ridiculous situation soon.

pugger

Can anyone explain why PPS have previously won at POPLA with their joke lost of costs? Or is it a mystery?

pugger

Appeal upheld. Will update when I get more details.

bazster

Kev can't have much carpet left to chew in his portakabin.

pugger

:rotfl:

Poor Kevin!

Coupon-mad

pugger wrote: »

Appeal upheld. Will update when I get more details.

Yay again - tell us more! :T

bazster

And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling hobbyists!

hoohoo

pugger wrote: »

Can anyone explain why PPS have previously won at POPLA with their joke lost of costs? Or is it a mystery?

If you check their web site the assessor is Nozir Uddin. Nuff said!

pugger

Thanks!

Here's the POPLA verdict, AS Parking WILL be in the next POPLA annual report, hopefully more will follow or at least sanctions points. Cheers Kev!!


The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

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

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils


Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Expired ticket’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly displayed, or that the ticket displayed had expired.

It is the Appellant’s case that:

a) She paid what seemed to be the correct tariff for her stay.

b) The parking charge does not reflect the loss caused by the alleged breach.

c) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question.

The Operator submits that the charge does in fact represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In support of its submission the Operator has produced a detailed breakdown of how it submits it calculates its pre-estimate.

On this occasion, I do not accept the Operator’s submission that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Operators are able to claim for any initial loss which could be caused by the breach, and any losses consequential to this initial loss. In its explanation of how its pre-estimate of loss is calculated, the Operator includes a number of heads which cannot form part of the estimate. The Operator appears to have included both duplicate heads of loss and also included a large sum for VAT. As the parking charge in this case represents liquidated damages for a breach of contract, no VAT would be payable on it. Discounting both the VAT and the duplicate heads leaves a remaining figure well below £100, and so I do not find that the charge in this case substantially amounts to a pre-estimate of loss.

I note the Operator’s submission that the same approach has been accepted for other Operators. I do not have the cases before me, but from the evidence provided in this case I am not satisfied that the charge was arrived at by a genuine attempt to pre-estimate the loss which could be caused by the Appellant’s failure to display a valid ticket.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

0611294001 2 19 August 2014


I need not decide any other issues.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

TheFlamingRed

Finally... But please don't come here tomorrow to say that the decision has been revoked. We have room for only so much drama, though a hat-trick of successful POPLA decisions for any one case would be something to behold...

Alas, this will be a fine tale to tell the grandchildren one day... maybe...