POPLA appeal REFUSED!!!!

Coupon-mad

cyberbird wrote: »

So you are saying that the PEOL should be the average cost rather than the potential cost in this case? Is there an authority you can refer me on this?

Covered, I hope, in my reply.

cyberbird

Coupon-mad wrote: »

- you had pointed out that only a tiny % of cases go to POPLA yet this Assessor has accepted that every £85 PCN issued there includes £68.07 of 'POPLA time'. If this were the case then in 98% of cases, Highview would be claiming money they are not entitled to (no POPLA in 98% of cases) and they'd be making a £68.07 profit almost every time - that's not a GPEOL then! The Assessor should have seen that it could not possibly be in the 'reasonable contemplation' of the Operator when issuing their £85 PCNs every day to people, that it would be inherently likely in a 'average case' that this stupidly inflated staff cost would be likely - POPLA cases being so rare.

But isn't the GPEOL the contractual estimate of the loss if that specific contract is breached?

Coupon-mad

cyberbird wrote: »

But isn't the GPEOL the contractual estimate of the loss if that specific contract is breached?

Yes - but MADE IN ADVANCE, before issuing the PCN. Not totted up afterwards now it's gone to POPLA. It can't include POPLA time in full - at best it could be 2% of the cost of POPLA appeals, if 2 in 100 go to POPLA. Or its nothing if POPLA accept that the service has to be free to the consumer.

cyberbird

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes - but MADE IN ADVANCE, before issuing the PCN. Not totted up afterwards now it's gone to POPLA. It can't include POPLA time in full - at best it could be 2% of the cost of POPLA appeals, if 2 in 100 go to POPLA. Or its nothing if POPLA accept that the service has to be free to the consumer.

Surely it's when the contract is written that the GPEOL is estimated. The contract is between the driver and PE. The amount is an estimate of loss if that driver breaches the contract. What happens in regard to all other drivers and their contracts is irrelevant in the same way it would be when you draw up any contract between 2 parties.

The other points about whether the cost of the appeal should be included and whether the amount for administration is excessive are arguable. I read a specimen case by Henry Michael Greenslade on the POPLA site. He discusses in detail what can and cannot be included. In regard to the POPLA appeal fees he says "On the face of it, fees incurred by an operator in an appeal to POPLA might be a recoverable loss but the whole ethos of the appeals system is that there is no charge to the motorist. However, this is perhaps a matter for the BPA."

In section 43 he refers to wages and salaries of staff involved and notes that these may be relatively substantial.

Also from the sample case, in section 42. The assessor states (in regard to the PEOL) that "It is not the specific loss caused by the actual breach but may include loss incurred or loss that might reasonably be incurred".

I have only been looking into these cases for about a week but think that the main reason these parking companies lose nearly all the time at POPLA is because they don't understand what a GPEOL is. The specimen case on the POPLA site seemed to me to be a helping hand for them.

The GPEOL argument may soon be a thing of the past!

gavcradd

Thanks for all of your help so far. Next step seems to be a "cancellation of alleged contract" to Highview, followed swiftly by a complaint to POPLA arguing about procedural points, send by recorded delivery.

I'll keep everyone informed...

EnigmaPart1

gavcradd wrote: »

Thanks for all of your help so far. Next step seems to be a "cancellation of alleged contract" to Highview, followed swiftly by a complaint to POPLA arguing about procedural points, send by recorded delivery.

I'll keep everyone informed...

dont post it
email it rreeve@popla.org.uk

Coupon-mad

Yep email it - NOT by post - the other thread tells you exactly how to play it.

4consumerrights

cyberbird wrote: »

Surely it's when the contract is written that the GPEOL is estimated. The contract is between the driver and PE. The amount is an estimate of loss if that driver breaches the contract. What happens in regard to all other drivers and their contracts is irrelevant in the same way it would be when you draw up any contract between 2 parties.

The other points about whether the cost of the appeal should be included and whether the amount for administration is excessive are arguable. I read a specimen case by Henry Michael Greenslade on the POPLA site. He discusses in detail what can and cannot be included. In regard to the POPLA appeal fees he says "On the face of it, fees incurred by an operator in an appeal to POPLA might be a recoverable loss but the whole ethos of the appeals system is that there is no charge to the motorist. However, this is perhaps a matter for the BPA."

In section 43 he refers to wages and salaries of staff involved and notes that these may be relatively substantial.

Also from the sample case, in section 42. The assessor states (in regard to the PEOL) that "It is not the specific loss caused by the actual breach but may include loss incurred or loss that might reasonably be incurred".

I have only been looking into these cases for about a week but think that the main reason these parking companies lose nearly all the time at POPLA is because they don't understand what a GPEOL is. The specimen case on the POPLA site seemed to me to be a helping hand for them.

The GPEOL argument may soon be a thing of the past!

Having read some of your posts and comments - you actually sound like a parking company....

That "helping" hand report has been around for some time as have workshops for parking companies held by the BPA.

Ironically the BPA's "recommended" figure of a parking charge hardly accounts for any loss incurred by a parking company which is also stipulated. Even more ironic is the amount the BPA pay POPLA for each appeal.

Reading some of your comments - you actually start to sound like a parking company in some respects....

cyberbird

4consumerrights wrote: »

Having read some of your posts and comments - you actually sound like a parking company....

There are two sides to every argument and I've come here with an open mind. I'm not a parking company - look at my posts more closely and you will see. I'm quite happy for you to assume I am a parking company though if you want to.

One thing you can't say though is that POPLA appeals are 100% successful. Most people who come here are more interested in the future. Things are changing all the time and what was once a successful template argument may no longer be.

After further thought I'm actually coming around to thinking that the charge has to be a reasonable calculation of loss which would have to factor in the likelyhood of a charge being incurred.

However such an argument is definitely debatable (as we see by this case and the way the chief assessor is talking in the sample case). A better approach would be to look at reasons why it isn't an actual estimate made prior to the signs being put up. Things like the parking company varying the fines in different car parks in such a way that it is obviously not a PEOL. Or having submitted different calculations and arguments at different times to the courts and POPLA.

Perhaps the argument should first be:

1. a reasonable PEOL would factor in the probability of the actual individual costs being incurred. As 2 out of every 50 pay up without an appeal to POPLA the full costs should not be used in the calculation.

2. If it is accepted that the charge is a GPEOL then the contract is unfair as 48 out of 50 pay up without a POPLA appeal.

All the arguments I've seen don't combine the unfair term and not a GPEOL' arguments, they just list them separately.

Northlakes

Do you not have go back to the basic premise (law of trespass) that GPEOL is to put the landowner/claimant back to a position financially had a breach NOT OCURRED?

I once worked out that if a over-stayer of 30 minutes in a free full car park at Morrisons denied them a loss of profit of £1.21 based on their 2012 results. There would also be a DVLA fee of £2.50, postage and stationery say £2. Total £5.71 Where does the BPA figure of £100 come from? Answer: it's fiction derived to earn profits for a parking company which has imposed itself on car park owners for mutual financial benefit.

Car parks do have to be managed, there are chancers who think that owning a car park is cost free and they don't need to contribute either indirectly through custom at a store or by other payment methods. However there is a big difference between actual cost and what the PPC's like to draw on as opportunity profits from erring motorists. That is what POPLA is getting at with their interpretation of GPEOL.

There can be no commercial justification of these penalty or contractual charges as don't represent fair bargaining which is a basic concept in contract law. How can £100 charge (say a weeks old age pension) for an over-stay or not parking between white lines be considered fair when there is no bargaining power with the driver. A family has to buy food and if all the supermarkets impose the same rules so their is no bargaining.

PPC's seek to recover all their costs and profits from only the errant motorist. If PPC operator costs can ever be justified they must be born by all users not just those in supposed breach.