Company car in own spot

4stars

I have received the PPCs evidence pack today and was rather surprise not to find a breakdown of the GPOL. Instead the operator stated that “we don’t supply a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we are contracted by the landowner/managing agent so not have any figures available.” Speaking about the contract, they supplied an un-redacted version of their agreement with the management company. I thought about adding the following to my initial POPLA appeal.

Dear POPLA,

After receiving the operator’s evidence package I want to add the following to my initial appeal from [date]th September.

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Paragraph 19.1 of BPA Code of Practice (February 2014) specifically ask that a charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss. Ethical Parking Management cannot demonstrate any quantifiable loss. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
Paragraph 7.1 of BPA Code of Practice (February 2014) states that “you must have the written authorisation of the landowner.” An agreement between Ethical Parking Management and another non-landholder [name of Management Company] is not in compliance with paragraph 7.1 & 7.2 where a non-landowner private parking company must have written authorisation of the landowner.

3) Grace period not in accordance with BPA CoP
The agreement between Ethical Parking Management and [name of Management Company] is not in compliance with paragraph 13 of Code of Practice (February 2014). Point 13.1 of the code states that: “You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.” Under site information on page 3 of the agreement “grace period before issuing a PCN” is stated as “No”.

4) Non-compliant Notice to Driver
No evidence were supplied by the operator.

Any suggestions?

4stars

Any comments? Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

You could add to point 2, these words which kind of quote from a POPLA Assessor so it will be familiar to them:


I am unable to determine who the landowner is from this witness statement nor whether the operator has the authority of the landowner for their activities. So in the absence of clear landowner authority, the charge cannot be enforced.

4stars

And yet another successful POPLA appeal. Many thanks for all who have helped.

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

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xx July 2014 the operator’s employee issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx. The operator’s employee recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

The appellant raised more than one ground of appeal; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant stated that the parking charge did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Appellants are not to be expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance and so should be proportionate to the loss suffered. Accordingly, the charge must be shown not to be punitive. This is illustrated by the operator providing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which reflects the parking charge.

The operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

ampersand

Excellent.

-along with the grovelling apology from managing agents, accompanying a copy of PPC Contract Terminated, surely? :-)

Coupon-mad

4stars wrote: »

And yet another successful POPLA appeal. Many thanks for all who have helped.

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

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On xx July 2014 the operator’s employee issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx. The operator’s employee recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

The appellant raised more than one ground of appeal; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant stated that the parking charge did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Appellants are not to be expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance and so should be proportionate to the loss suffered. Accordingly, the charge must be shown not to be punitive. This is illustrated by the operator providing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which reflects the parking charge.

The operator does not appear to dispute that the sum represents damages, and has not attempted to justify the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

Nice one! Have you added your success to the POPLA Decisions thread, along with a link here and a heading saying which PPC it was against so it's easy to follow on the sticky?