CP Plus MSA - Popla appeal rejected

4consumerrights

bunzee wrote: »

Thanks all - what's the best way for me to proceed, should I appeal the Popla decision on the basis the costs are not a pre-estimate?

Or, ignore and see if CP Plus do go down the court route?

Or, any other suggestions?

The is no point in your appealing to POPLA as there has been no procedural error.

CP-Plus have not done court to date.

bazster

That is disgraceful. Like I keep saying, PoPLA is not our friend and it was only a matter of time until it found a way of dancing to its paymaster's tune.

Guys_Dad

I have re-read more carefully the initial post and appeal by the OP.

My main worry over this was "Why has a previously GPEOL savvy, sound assessor suddenly turned down a template GPEOL appeal and seemingly allowed post-event costs to be included?? Are we seeing a change of direction??"


In June, this assessor upheld an appeal with the following words
"Whilst I appreciate that in some cases e.g. where the car park is a pay and display one, the issuing of the parking charge notice may be held to be an initial loss, however, in this circumstance the car park is free and therefore I find that there is no initial loss caused here. The Operator has not shown that by parking outside of a marked bay, the Appellant at that point caused a loss to themselves or the landowner.

The Operator has only shown that they incurred the loss as a result of the appeals process after issuing the parking charge notice. In order for a charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the Operator has to show that they at first have incurred an initial loss by the Appellants’ breach directly." See POPLA DECISIONS post #1191

Looking at the assessor's decision on this current thread, I could , at first, not comprehend why this decision went in the other direction and my suspicions were that POPLA is shifting direction. I am still worried that this may be the case.

However, the following is contained in the appeal quoted above in post #3

"The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

In this case, CP Plus has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that CP Plus has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case."

I now wonder if bunzee shot themselves in the foot with that appeal on GPEOL.

First of all, clearly the PPC provided a breakdown of costs.
Secondly, the quote from the Department of Transport actually opened the door for them to include post-event costs.

This shows that MSE members need to be very, very careful about what they include in appeals and keep them 100% relevant to the facts in their cases.

So maybe that is the answer here and, with due respect to bungee, I hope that it is the reason rather that a change of direction for POPLA.

gertysingh

The question might be what you would put in an appeal to Popla? After all which of those costs are considerations and which of those costs are damages?

Guys_Dad

gertysingh wrote: »

The question might be what you would put in an appeal to Popla? After all which of those costs are considerations and which of those costs are damages?

See Greenslade's comments from the POPLA annual report

However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards.

gertysingh

4consumerrights wrote: »

The is no point in your appealing to POPLA as the has been no procedural error.

CP-Plus have not done court to date.

If it is found that some of those costs are considerations and not damages, is there no way to ask for the appeal to be reconsidered?

gertysingh

Guys_Dad wrote: »

See Greenslade's comments from the POPLA annual report

However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards.

Ok - got it into my head. I even quoted it as well :beer:

bazster

Complain to BPA Ltd., DVLA, London Councils and your MP that

(i) this operator is claiming its PoPLA costs from motorists in direct contravention of BPA Ltd. and the government's wishes

(ii) even worse, it is by implication claiming those costs from motorists who don't even appeal

(iii) it is making a mockery of contract law by including appeal costs in a pre-estimate of losses when it has no idea if there will be an appeal

(iv) PoPLA has fallen for this trickery hook, line and sinker thereby proving that it is not fit for purpose through incompetence, bias or both.

If you live in London complain to your local councillors also, because PoPLA, in all its wretchedness, is run by London Councils and London Councils is run by, erm, the London councils! So if you live in London then PoPLA belongs to you.

gertysingh

Suggest reporting to The Office of Fair Trading as the alleged loss does not reference the original loss (£12) and suggest fraudulent charges to make up the magic figure of £100.

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't pay (this isn't binding on you). But I would complain and ask Richard Reeve for a review as I think points were missed by the Assessor:

[EMAIL="rreeve@popla.org.uk"]rreeve@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL]

I would complain that not all points were addressed and the GPEOL is not genuine pre-estimate; you have proof what it really was at the time (so do POPLA if they kept key cases and referred back).

I think I would dig out another CP Plus Moto case and get the GPEOL statement from that person (maybe that April one linked above but ideally one from the same car park and recent).

Then complain to the Lead Adjudicator that CP Plus has changed its loss statement after the parking event, to suit POPLA, when in fact it's real intention before the parking event was as stated in case number xxxxxxxxxx and was '{quote it from the other case}'.

In addition, to include the cost of staff members checking a POPLA submission has no part in a GPEOL for all PCNs issued, since only 2% of cases go to POPLA. To allow full hours spent on one case (even the case in question) does not address the fact (to quote Mr Greenslade) that the 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards.' So, in every case where CP Plus issue a £100 PCN it is not reasonable to include 2 hours of staff time (which are after all tax deductible business costs). The only way to factor in staff time on a POPLA appeal into every PCN would be on a pro-rata basis, and the amount would be minuscule.

A £12 overstay sum (which was not clear on the signs at all nor was it even stated on the Notice to keeper as an unpaid sum in the nature of a parking fee) does not become £100 in every case, far from it. To say that it does would be stating the actual cost of this POPLA case, which Mr Greenslade has made it clear is not the basis of a GPEOl.

And complain that, in addition, two relevant required points in the appeal were not addressed at all by CP Plus:

1. That a landowner contract has to have the stated points regarding 'authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. ' The witness statement merely said they could issue PCNs which is not the same thing - any employee or contractor could have permission to send out letters but this does not give that employee or contractor the right to 'pursue charges in the courts if necessary'. A witness statement does not address the point of locus standi.

2. As this is an MSA, all traffic signs within the site are required to meet the TSRGD2002 and this was not addressed by the Operator, despite the appellant covering the matter in detail with quotes from the DFT.

You could also bung this quote and link in, if anywhere in your appeals you said the driver stopped to sleep/rest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8784988/Tired-driver-hit-with-fine-for-taking-a-nap.html

“Now that the circumstances surrounding Mr Orr’s penalty have been brought to our attention it will be rescinded under our policy of not charging drivers who have taken a nap for reasons of safety.”

Shows the intention and policy of the MOTO Services - and if CP Plus pursued it outwith that policy then it's not recoverable. Probably ties in with the witness statement which no doubt says something about the agent acting in accordance with the policies of the Services? You can show POPLA that wasn't the case so they were outside of their authority (IF you'd said the driver stopped to rest).

Finally, some questions:

- was the appeal heard early, before the date you had been told?

- how long did you have between receiving CP Plus' evidence and then the decision being made?