GPEOL when ticket not purchased?

gavcradd

Just checking something...I've won a few appeals for friends in the past using the GPEOL argument, but having checked this board today, there appears to be something slightly different in the most recent POPLA decisions (or something I've just not noticed before).

The wins on GPEOL appear to have a statement about "For such losses to be recoverable, the must Operator show an initial loss which needed to be pursued. This is simple where there was, for example, a failure to pay a tariff to park."

I have a friend who has parked somewhere that has always previously been free at night, but has very recently started charging overnight. He parked there, didn't buy a ticket and has consequently received a ticket from one of these cowboys. My initial reaction was no problem, another GPEOL win at POPLA.

However, is this not now the case? Do I need to change my standard POPLA letter somehow now?

Thanks.

The_Slithy_Tove

GPEOL will still work. Their loss is the price of a P&D ticket + a few overheads. That doesn't add up to £100 or whatever they're asking for.


The statement you quoted is simply an additional twist of the knife in cases where the initial loss is zero. Just adds more fuel to the already-blazing fire.

Coupon-mad

There are 'Pay & Display car park' versions shown in 'How to win at POPLA' as linked in post #3 of the Newbies thread. In almost every case the NTK fails to state the amount of the parking charges which remain unpaid (the tariff of course, not the amount the PPC conveniently also call the 'parking charge' - OK so the POFA leaves this ambiguous but it is worth arguing).

In most cases it's also unclear from the NTK what the circumstances were which gave rise to the PCN - could be 'paid too little'; could be 'paid nothing'; could be 'paid but didn't display'; could be 'paid but put in the wrong VRN'; could be 'failed to pay by RingGo in time'; could be 'paid but then overstayed the maximum time' - or could be any old made up stuff such as 'failed to sing Hallelujah as they popped the coins in the machine because the signs said a driver has to'! See what I mean?

So you will see for example, in the recent POPLA example for ParkingEye in a P&D car park which I tweaked only yesterday, that I have stated that the NTK is flawed (giving appellants an extra appeal point as long as they've never said who was driving).