CP Plus MSA - Popla appeal rejected

gertysingh

Excellent C-M

Bunzee - my appeal was heard in May this year and was for an overstay in a Moto services. CP+ had stated:

The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the costs to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so

I will give you my code so that you can refer Popla to it. Although I would not copy my gpeol as it was really short!

bunzee

Huge thanks to everyone here for the help, Coupon Mad I will definitely do as you say and once I have drafted the letter I will post here for anyone to check

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?

No - the original email stating my appeal had been received stated I would receive a response on or soon after the 15th July, but didn't receive it until the 18th.

CP Plus sent a copy of their evidence on the 7th July, so there were 11 days between that and the appeal being rejected.

bazster

These garbage GPEOL statements containing management costs for doing PoPLA appeals and so forth need to be robustly challenged to PoPLA as soon as the operator's evidence lands on the doormat/inbox.

Leaving aside the glaring issues of how PoPLA costs can form part of a pre-estimate and so forth, how are management time costs attributable to any given particular parking event? The manager would still have been getting paid even if he/she hadn't supposedly been working on this (or any other) appeal.

CJM0045

"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.

Guys Dad If this is what is stated in the Department for Transport guideline then do you think that CP Plus might now use this to win future appeals re Gpeol or am I misunderstanding this?

Umkomaas

For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges.

Since when did any of that lot add up to £100, especially in free car parks, from where most cases emanate?

CJM0045

Secondly, the quote from the Department of Transport actually opened the door for them to include post-event costs.

The adjudicator refused the appeal on GPEOL so he allowed these extortionate costs to be included. Would be very interested to know if you get this overturned Bunzee as we are just about to challenge CP Plus too.