POPLA appeal REFUSED!!!!

HO87

@cyberbird

I think your arguments are based on some incorrect assumptions.

1. Only 4% or PCN's are appealed to POPLA? I thought it was a smaller percentage than that.
2. It is illogical to assume that the remaining 96% simply pay up. The BPA's figures suggest that the total is somewhere in the vicinity of 55-60% (and falling) whilst ParkingEye, for example, assert that they cancel as many as 65% of their PCN's at initial appeal. As by far and away the largest PPC one might be persuaded that their totals are near the national average.
3. At no point has it been suggested that 100% of POPLA appeals are successful that I am aware of (I'm willing to be corrected). I think that the boast here, if that is how it might be interpreted, is that near 100% of forum guided appeals are successful. I'd be surprised if that equated to a majority of all appeals.
The agonied twisting and turning of various PPC's in their repeated and utterly futile attempts to construct a GPEOL that will account for the sums they demand and will pass the POPLA test is well known and obvious.

People may indeed be interested in the future but for those who are dealing with PPC's demands today it is somewhat irrelevant. We may speculate about future enforcement regimes but for the moment the DfT has made it clear that breach-of-contract based enforcement against registered keepers (by virtue of Sch.4 POFA) must represent a GPEOL.

If PPC's and the BPA adopt a new model then besides anything else the whole of the arguments advanced by the BPA to obtain Sch 4 will be shown to be as entirely hollow as the evidence given by them that substantial savings to the Courts system would be achieved by the provision of keeper liability.

The truth is that the whole enterprise is predicated on money-making and nothing else. The protection of land owners' rights is, IMHO, little more than a convenient figleaf.

cyberbird

Northlakes wrote: »

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?

@Northlakes. I don't disagree with you. I find the whole thing disconcerting but know how these things work. Money talks. Big companies keep prosecuting until common law favours them.

From what I have learnt so far what you say is basically correct except it appears that an estimate of losses made before the signs were put up can be claimed rather than losses.

cyberbird

HO87 wrote: »

@HO87

I think your arguments are based on some incorrect assumptions.

I didn't want to get bogged down with figures so simply repeated the figures I'd seen. The debate is still valid. I think you may have missed the fact that I am coming around to Coupon-mad's way of thinking but am concerned that it would appear very easy for parking companies to come up with a PEOL that matches the amount they are asking for.

When I referred to the future I was thinking about the very near future. I may be wrong but I think there are changes afoot and people making their appeals now may be better changing the approach.

I'm not sure the supermarkets hide behind the protection of land rights. If I was in business I'd be pretty miffed if people were stopping me making money out of my customers. There are clearly fairer ways of going about it though. Although I think I also understand why they think it's better to sub-contract the job.

Guys_Dad

cyberbird wrote: »

When I referred to the future I was thinking about the very near future. I may be wrong but I think there are changes afoot and people making their appeals now may be better changing the approach.

Always willing to consider any recommendations, particularly from fresh faces.

I am interested to hear just what changes you are thinking of for those making appeals now. We can all speculate about what may happen in the future, but and new thoughts on the current systems are most welcome.

cyberbird

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I am interested to hear just what changes you are thinking of for those making appeals now.

Well treat these points as discussion items. I've only been looking at this for just over a week so please don't think I'm preaching. I wnat to make sure I win my own particular appeal and would also feel good if I could contribute to changing something that is clearly very unpopular.

I mention a couple of points above in regard to the approach for GPEOL.

Well my gut feeling is that the imposed contract side of the argument is actually flawed. But case law has probably been established on that front because they've been doing it for so long that people must have raised arguments before. It's also specific to each installation so difficult to give general advice. One argument that might not have come up before and which I find hard to accept is the fact that in order to be aware of your contractual position as somebody who parks on private land you really need to read every sign. There are probably over 100 signs at Aldi if you include all the ones about buying stuff.

I have looked at some of the POPLA decisions and feel as though there should be an effort to get more information back from POPLA. It seems as though POPLA dismiss most on "non receipt of PCN" and "not a GPEOL". This seems to be even if the appeal doesn't argue that no PCN has been provided.

I know people would be against it but it might actually be worth complaining if POPLA dismiss on an argument not put forward.

Also, rather than giving POPLA an easy "not a GPEOL" decision. Argue on a "if and only if" basis.

1. signage does not form basis of contract.
2. if, and only if it is deemed that signage does form a contract then claimant has no right to sue.
3. if, and only if it is deemed that the claimant has a right to sue, then the notice fails to comply with legislation
4. if and only if the notice complies with legislation then "not a GPEOL".
5. if deemed GPEOL then 1 to 4 when considered together amount to an unfair contract in respect of the consumer legislation.

POPLA should then consider all of the arguments. If they don't then you can complain that POPLA are making decisions off their own bat.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Originally, I read the chief adjudicator's words in his annual statement as being helpful, coupled with the general success with GPEOL, but I have re-read them and now have a worry in light of Amy's adjudications.

He wrote "However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards".

Clearly PPCs could interpret that as the £100 charge on the sign represents the potential cost of POPLA plus the number that get to court and they believe that it is reasonable to assume that those who do not pay the reduced sum will tough it out and cost them money.

Now I previously read the words as "It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards".

The difference is the comma between suffered and made. My interpretation was that it was the estimate of costs incurred before the breach and anything after was ruled out, but the insertion of the comma makes a huge difference. It allows the PPC to make an policy estimate of what reasonable costs COULD arise if the motorist did not pay.

So, let's see what happens with the appeal against Amy's decisions.

The key word is reasonable. It's not reasonable to include PoPLA costs because (i) hardly any cases will actually go to PoPLA and (ii) PoPLA is supposed to be free to the motorist.

If they wanted to include PoPLA costs they would need to have a more sophisticated liquidated damages clause e.g. £x if you pay immediately, £y if you appeal to PoPLA - but of course they can't do that because PoPLA is supposed to be free, and if they charged for it so blatantly (instead of through the back door as they are doing at the moment) the government would be forced to suspend Schedule 4 instantly.

Furthermore, the vast bulk of the supposed PoPLA costs in all these fake GPEOL schedules are staff costs. Employing staff is a business cost, which can be offset against profit for tax purposes. It is not a loss caused by someone's breach of contract. This applies whether there was an "initial loss" or not.

bazster

Someone needs to collect samples of these fake GPEOL schedules from as many companies as possible with a view to sending them to their MP and the DfT as evidence of backdoor charging for PoPLA. I'm willing to volunteer if people think it's a good idea, but it would need to be copies of the actual "evidence", transcripts posted here aren't good enough.

On second thoughts what am I drivelling on about? Parking Ticket Appeals must have loads of them already!

Aaron_Aadvark

cyberbird

There have previously been efforts to make structured appeals as you suggest. However, POPLA are required by their BPA Ltd paymasters to deal with appeals as efficiently as possible. Hence they will pick on an easy point, GPEOL if presented, and pronounce on that. The only way POPLA will judge on a particular point is if it is made in a single point appeal.

cyberbird

bazster wrote: »

The key word is reasonable.

Well "reasonable" means different things to different people. The government have said that charges must be reasonable. The Chief adjudicator wrote "It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered".

This is unclear. The actual key word here is possibly "might".

Furthermore, the vast bulk of the supposed PoPLA costs in all these fake GPEOL schedules are staff costs. Employing staff is a business cost, which can be offset against profit for tax purposes. It is not a loss caused by someone's breach of contract. This applies whether there was an "initial loss" or not.

I would have thought appropriate costs for staff time would be allowable. I've not seen anything that disallows these costs and the Chief Adjudicator at POPLA seems to allow them. Certain costs such as back office functions are not allowed e.g. rent, rates & insurance.

nigelbb

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.

Even assuming that there is a contract for parking in a free car park then it is not individually negotiated therefore any pre-estimate of loss must be averaged over ALL breaches. PPCs only offers one price for any breach whether it's an overstay, not displaying a ticket, parking in front of a fire exit, straddling a white line etc Whatever the 'offence' then one price fits all so the pre-estimate of loss is averaged over all. The logical inconsistency (or attempt at fraud depending on your viewpoint) that all these spurious claims for GPEOL contain is the alleged full cost of dealing with firstly an appeal to the PPC & then an appeal to POPLA.

The simple answer is that there is no way that any of these PPCs can come up with a GPEOL that is anywhere near £100 but the most that they could genuinely claim is about a tenth of that figure but then that would enormously educe their profits.

The even greater logical inconsistency the PPC business model based on claiming liquidated damages for breach of contract is that by only reclaiming losses then none of these companies could possibly make a profit. The flaw in the whole scheme is the PPC business model which perverts contract law to generate profits by unjust enrichment.