Premier Parking Solutions Rejected Appeal POPLA next stop?

Dee140157

An amended pre-estimation of loss��

sent after the event. Fail.
Back to junior school to learn about what the prefix "pre" means...

bazster

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sue Blacksmith you are letting women down sending such drivel for such a firm of ex-clampers - get yourself a real job you daft moo.

If I'd said that it would've been sexist :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

She drives me mad when I see the utter codswallop she puts her name to, in the name of a mere employer. A decent person would have more personal integrity.

bazster

Can't argue with that!

xxdaix

The New GPEL that PPS presented after POPLA was due to review my case

hxxps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/60329041/GPEL%20IN%20DETAIL%20-%20NEW.doc

Thanks

Dai

bazster

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/60329041/GPEL%20IN%20DETAIL%20-%20NEW.doc

Same old drivel. Words fail me.

Coupon-mad

Oh dear I am at work (can't view dropbox) and then out tonight so hope some other posters can help xxdaix have the final word to POPLA.

xxdaix

Win!!!
even after PPS submited more evidence regarding GEOPL..

Thanks to everyone that helped and gave advice on this. Coupon-Mad and bazster perticulary.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
Two appeals made by the appellant are presently before me. Since the same issues arise in respect of both, similar decisions have been issued for both appeals. This is the second in time.
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and that a parking charge notice was issued to it for failing to display a valid ticket or permit as required.
The appellant has made a number of representations, but it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing this appeal, which is that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected these representations, stating in regard to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue, that the charge does represent a genuine pre- estimate of loss.
Considering all the evidence before me, I note that the operator has provided additional submissions intended to clarify the meaning of their previous statements regarding their pre-estimate of loss. In these additional submissions the operator states that; “before the completed evidence pack is then sent to POPLA and the complainant, a Company Director then reviews the appeal and the evidence pack.” This means that the Director is engaging in quality control or management functions, which are not activities which can properly be included in a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the charge. As it is not possible to ascertain how much of the sum is derived from the improperly included activities, the entire £71.65 claimed under this head must be disallowed. This leaves a sum of £27.68, which is insufficient for a charge of £100 to be representative of it. This means that the charge cannot be found to represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and cannot therefore be found to be enforceable.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor


And Case number 2 same appeal.


xxxxxxxxx (Appellant)
-v-
Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at Didcot Station Car Park, on xx April 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx.
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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
Two appeals made by the appellant are presently before me. Since the same issues arise in respect of both, similar decisions have been issued for both appeals. This is the first in time.
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and that a parking charge notice was issued to it for failing to display a valid ticket or permit as required.
The appellant has made a number of representations, but it is only necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing this appeal, which is that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected these representations, stating in regard to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue that the charge does represent a genuine pre- estimate of loss.
Considering all the evidence before me, I note that the operator has provided additional submissions intended to clarify the meaning of their previous statements regarding their pre-estimate of loss. In these additional submissions the operator states that; “before the completed evidence pack is then sent to POPLA and the complainant, a Company Director then reviews the appeal and the evidence pack.” This means that the Director is engaging in quality control or management functions, which are not activities which can properly be included in a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the charge. As it is not possible to ascertain how much of the sum is derived from the improperly included activities, the entire £71.65 claimed under this head must be disallowed. This leaves a sum of £27.68, which is insufficient for a charge of £100 to be representative of it. This means that the charge cannot be found to represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and cannot therefore be found to be enforceable.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor



Thanks to everyone on MSE for giving me the confidence to fight this.

Coupon-mad

Have you added these two nice (fully correct) outcomes to 'POPLA Decisions' xxdaix? Please do.

Got to bump this outcome so people can see it - this bit is worth people quoting in any PPC case:

''the operator states that; “before the completed evidence pack is then sent to POPLA and the complainant, a Company Director then reviews the appeal and the evidence pack.” This means that the Director is engaging in quality control or management functions, which are not activities which can properly be included in a genuine pre-estimate of loss arising from the charge. As it is not possible to ascertain how much of the sum is derived from the improperly included activities, the entire £71.65 claimed under this head must be disallowed.''

(Back of the net, Christopher Monk!)

oxford-nick

Hello Coupon-mad,

I have a very similar situation for the same parking location with a parking charge notice from premier parking solutions.

How can I provide you with everything, including up to date pictures of the signage at the car park and all correspondence I have had with PPS and details of my POPLA code (which is due to expire on the 8th of Jan) - As I fear the signage may have now changed to combat your reply you typed out for the original poster in this thread....

Many Thanks