We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Successful appeal at POPLA
baldnunn
Posts: 19 Forumite
Greetings all. I haven't posted re this matter previously but am pleased to announce that my appeal to POPLA regarding a PCN has been successful :j on the grounds of GPEOL.... or lack thereof!
I would like to thank all those responsible for the advice, information and templates on this site. :T
The PPC is UK Parking Ltd. with all admin handled on their behalf by PCN Parking Services, a trading style of ROXBURGHE (UK) Ltd.
In short, ticket purchased at 1958hrs, due to expire at 2158hrs. Returned to car at 2203hrs to find ticket had been issued at 2205hrs!! (Yes, you read that correctly!) Initial appeal rejected to my great surprise
and subsequent appeal to POPLA on loads of grounds.
I received the result from POPLA this afternoon which states:
"The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Castle Car Park, Windsor, on 1 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that its Terms and Conditions of parking were displayed in signage placed throughout the above named site. It submits that the Terms stated that drivers must pay for and display a valid ticket covering the duration of their stay at the site. They submit that the Appellant remained at the site beyond the time their ticket expired and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued.
The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal to deal with one. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Where the Appellant makes the submission that an outstanding charge pursued by an Operator does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of their loss, there is a burden on the Operator to provide a pre-estimate which details how they calculated the parking charge amount.
This burden is placed upon an Operator and not the driver. It does not need to be particularly detailed or amount to exactly the charge amount because it is simply an estimate. However, evidence of a pre-estimate must be provided.
On the evidence before me, I can see that the Operator has not addressed the matter of their pre-estimate of loss. Therefore, I cannot find the charge to be justified in this case.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell, Assessor"
I still have a complaint going through BPA regarding the actions of the two companies including, I opine, three breaches of the BPA CoP, but honestly don't expect anything to come of that. :eek: My experience of the BPA suggests that they are an apologist club for cowboy companies.
Thanks again guys. :beer:
I would like to thank all those responsible for the advice, information and templates on this site. :T
The PPC is UK Parking Ltd. with all admin handled on their behalf by PCN Parking Services, a trading style of ROXBURGHE (UK) Ltd.
In short, ticket purchased at 1958hrs, due to expire at 2158hrs. Returned to car at 2203hrs to find ticket had been issued at 2205hrs!! (Yes, you read that correctly!) Initial appeal rejected to my great surprise
and subsequent appeal to POPLA on loads of grounds.I received the result from POPLA this afternoon which states:
"The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Castle Car Park, Windsor, on 1 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that its Terms and Conditions of parking were displayed in signage placed throughout the above named site. It submits that the Terms stated that drivers must pay for and display a valid ticket covering the duration of their stay at the site. They submit that the Appellant remained at the site beyond the time their ticket expired and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge issued.
The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal to deal with one. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Where the Appellant makes the submission that an outstanding charge pursued by an Operator does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of their loss, there is a burden on the Operator to provide a pre-estimate which details how they calculated the parking charge amount.
This burden is placed upon an Operator and not the driver. It does not need to be particularly detailed or amount to exactly the charge amount because it is simply an estimate. However, evidence of a pre-estimate must be provided.
On the evidence before me, I can see that the Operator has not addressed the matter of their pre-estimate of loss. Therefore, I cannot find the charge to be justified in this case.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Ricky Powell, Assessor"
I still have a complaint going through BPA regarding the actions of the two companies including, I opine, three breaches of the BPA CoP, but honestly don't expect anything to come of that. :eek: My experience of the BPA suggests that they are an apologist club for cowboy companies.
Thanks again guys. :beer:
0
Comments
-
Good news, Could you please post this on the "POPLA Results" thread. ThanksWhat part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
-
trisontana wrote: »Good news, Could you please post this on the "POPLA Results" thread. Thanks
Done and dusted.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.9K Spending & Discounts
- 246.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.9K Life & Family
- 260.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards