Paid but still had a ticket

Coupon-mad

Are you joking ? (rhetorical question, I am sure you are not). PPS have just lost a couple of similar cases where the poster used similar arguments.

Do not pay!

Show us your decision letter and Assessor's name, in full (except for the car reg). Was it Nozir Uddin?

Did you get PPS' evidence, please show it to us as well. If you were never sent their 'evidence pack' that's great leverage to get POPLA to allow you to respond. We have had this situation before and people have complained to POPLA and got the flawed decision overturned (much easier if PPS never sent you the 'evidence' to comment upon). Check your junk/spam email folders.

Here is someone who 'lost' at POPLA but was never sent the evidence pack, so they then complained & rebutted the 'evidence' and after 6 months of POPLA referring it up the line, the OP won after all!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4811265

and here is a PPS case where the appellant lost at POPLA but decided she would wait and see what PPS did:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4944591

I would send her a pm and see what happened next - last I heard it had all gone quiet.

Do not pay! A POPLA decision is not binding on you.

Coupon-mad

Just bumping this so you tell us if you got an evidence email from PPS, if so did you read it and rebut it by email to POPLA? Show us the entire decision including the Assessor's name.

newcruiser

Thank you. My assessor was Amy Riley

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘no valid ticket displayed’. The operator submits that a
parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
The appellant has made a number of submissions. The appellant submits that:
1.
The parking charge of £100 does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.
2.
The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to pursue these charges through the courts in their own name.
3.
The ticket was purchased and displayed at 08:40 and but no parking charge was issued until after 18:00, over 9 hours later.
4.
The upright signage at the entrance and around the car park created no contract with the driver to ‘continuously display’ parking tickets.
5.
The amount required to park on the day had been paid and
tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required. PPS did not mitigate any loss.
6.
The contravention as described did not occur.

I will firstly discuss the appellant’s submission that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of the operator’s loss.
The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable.
Where there is an initial loss which may be caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display
ticket) this loss will be recoverable.
Provided an initial loss can be demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss,
such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations,
may also be included in the pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a
failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the appellant’s breach.The operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.
In this case the ticket was not displayed and so the operator was unable to ascertain whether parking time had been purchased. The initial loss is therefore for the parking ticket as it was not clearly displayed.
The operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge notice.The operator has demonstrated an initial loss of the pay and display parking ticket, and
the other losses referred to by the operator are consequential to this initial loss.
The operator is not required to show that this is the loss which was actually caused by the breach, but that it was a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could be caused and
so is enforceable against the appellant who agreed to the charge by parking.
Taking together the evidence before me, I am satisfied on this occasion that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Secondly, the appellant submits that the parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to pursue these charges through the courts in their own name.

Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement.
This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.
The operator has produced a witness statement signed on behalf of Plymouth City Council to demonstrate that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site.
Thirdly, the appellant submits that the ticket was purchased and displayed at 08:40 and but no parking charge was issued until after 18:00, over 9 hours later.
The operator has produced photographic evidence showing the full length of the appellant’s dashboard and the whole windscreen of the vehicle. The photographs appear to show that there is no valid ticket clearly on display. I note that the appellant submitted that the ticket may not have been clearly
visible due to bird excrement on the windscreen; however, I find that the windscreen was not obscured so much as to make any displayed tickets not visible to a parking attendant.

I also note that the appellant submits that the parking charge was not issued until after 18:00; however, the operator is able to issue parking charges at any time when a contravention of the terms and conditions of parking is noticed.
Fourthly, the appellant submits that the upright signage at the entrance and around the car park created no contract with the driver to ‘continuously display’ parking tickets.

The operator has produced photographic evidence
showing that signage at the site in question states:

“Payment is required at all times as stated on the tariff.”
“Do not leave your vehicle in this car park for any reason without displaying a valid ticket or permit.”

Consequently, I find that the operator has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the appellant. When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the
conditions of parking in return for permission to
park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions.
The appellant also submits that the amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required. PPS did not mitigate any loss.

The operator has produced photographic evidence showing that signage at the site in question states:

“Do not leave your vehicle in this car park for any reason without displaying a valid ticket or permit.”

By leaving his vehicle in the parking site, the appellant is deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of parking for the site in question, and one of the conditions is to display a valid ticket or permit for duration of the parking time. I note that the appellant submits that he did pay for a ticket; however, a ticket must also be clearly displayed by the appellant in order to meet the terms and conditions of parking provided by the operator.



Finally, the appellant submits that the contravention as described did not occur.
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle parked at their site on 7 August 2014. The photographs appear to show that there is no valid ticket on display in the appellant’s vehicle, and that a parking charge notice was issued by the operator for this reason.
I therefore find that the operator has provided sufficient evidence showing that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on its site without displaying a valid ticket.
Having carefully considered all of the evidence before me I find that by failing to display a valid ticket, the appellant became liable for a parking charge notice in accordance with the terms of parking displayed.

Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

EnigmaPart1

Right ok, not heard of Amy Riley before, she must be new

If you did not receive the evidence pack you get this set aside next week with our help, we can then help you beat PPs

Please answer this question next

newcruiser

I am having problems pasting and copying the case summary, when I paste I get a string of words from the text in a line down the page. I have reformatted two pages, out of nine, one word at a time which took about 2 hours. I have tried to post it but know I am being told that the document is too large.
Can anyone help please?

nigelbb

newcruiser wrote: »

In this case the ticket was not displayed and so the operator was unable to ascertain whether parking time had been purchased. The initial loss is therefore for the parking ticket as it was not clearly displayed.

This is nonsense. Where is there a loss if the ticket was purchased but not displayed?

After new girl Amy Riley comes to this bizarre conclusion she also completely ignores the appellant's refutation of the PPC's alleged genuine pre-estimate of loss that PPS have once again massaged the figures to come up with the answer that they first thought of.

You need to send a complaint to Henry Greenslade the POPLA Lead Adjudicator regarding this perverse decision.

EnigmaPart1

newcruiser wrote: »

I am having problems pasting and copying the case summary, when I paste I get a string of words from the text in a line down the page. I have reformatted two pages, out of nine, one word at a time which took about 2 hours. I have tried to post it but know I am being told that the document is too large.
Can anyone help please?

So you have received the evidence pack

EnigmaPart1

nigelbb wrote: »

This is nonsense. Where is there a loss if the ticket was purchased but not displayed?

After new girl Amy Riley comes to this bizarre conclusion she also completely ignores the appellant's refutation of the PPC's alleged genuine pre-estimate of loss that PPS have once again massaged the figures to come up with the answer that they first thought of.

You need to send a complaint to Henry Greenslade the POPLA Lead Adjudicator regarding this perverse decision.

Sorry but this is a waste of time,. complaining to greenslade wont get the OP any where. Move on. If you get a court claim, then come back to us

There is no point advising someone to complain about a decision, unless an evidence pack was not received, as it wont achieve anything .

newcruiser

Yes I have received the evidence pack, but I have been trying all morning, without success, to post it

EnigmaPart1

newcruiser wrote: »

Yes I have received the evidence pack, but I have been trying all morning, without success, to post it

You dont need to now