Civil Enforcement - Advice Welcomed

OAP_Hampshire

Despite being told that POPLA's offices were now shut until 4th January, I have now heard that my appeal will be assessed early February.

bluetoffee1878

Don't forget to come back and update your thread when you win, and more importantly the point that the assessor upholds your appeal on
In the meantime enjoy your Christmas

OAP_Hampshire

Yes, eventually I won - HOORAY! Despite Coupon-mad's gloomy prediction.


I did hope that my transparent honesty would have won the day, but it seems it all hinged on that point of law .... pre-estimate of loss.


Incidentally I learned from submissions made to POPLA that CEL rely solely on income from fines, which was illuminating.


Following is POPLA's judgement - thank goodness that commonsense ruled the day:-





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 [FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]


The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination




[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is not in dispute that the appellant parked at the site and failed to make payment for parking. This was detected by the operator’s ANPR system, causing a parking charge notice to be issued.


The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the charge notice does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This was raised by the appellant stating that they did not cause the operator or the landowner to lose an amount of income equal to the parking charge.


The operator rejected these representations, stating that the charge was consideration so did not have to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and in any case was calculated by reference to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Considering all the evidence before me, I hold that the charge does not represent consideration, as the signage gives a clear impression that permission is not given to the driver of the vehicle to fail to pay for parking at the time. The operator’s attempt to provide for this finding by stating that the charge is based on a pre-estimate of loss in addition cannot succeed, as a genuine pre-estimate of loss can only be arrived at through a deliberate attempt to estimate the loss, an undertaking which is not compatible with the claim that the charge represents consideration. I am therefore required to find that the operator has failed to show that the charge is not an unenforceable penalty.


Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.


[/FONT]

[/FONT]Christopher Monk

Umkomaas

Yes, eventually I won - HOORAY! Despite Coupon-mad's gloomy prediction.

Coupon-mad's 'gloomy prediction' was based on the proposition that the email you sent initially to CEL would be used as the basis and wording for your POPLA appeal, but from the Assessor's comments you have used the winning points we advise, including the GPEOL 'silver bullet'.

So, well done. Now, please do us a favour and tell all your friends about the private car park 'management' charade, the business model of which is principally aimed at issuing penalties to motorists and relieving them of eye-watering amounts of money. As you now know, they can be seen off with help from the forum.

If you're a member, use Facebook and Twitter to tell your friends, and ask them to pass on the message to their friends. The more people know, the more sense we can knock into this system.

bluetoffee1878

Excellent result.

Now the important thing is to spread the word. Tell all your family, all your friends.

Just because you (and the good people here) are "law abiding" does not mean that you should be open to dubious practices of a certain industry to part you from your hard earned.

OAP_Hampshire

Yes I've warned everybody about this particular car park.


The most telling thing I learned was that CEL exist solely by exacting fines, which explains their vindictiveness and refusal to listen to reason, which is completely outrageous.

bluetoffee1878

OAP_Hampshire wrote: »

The most telling thing I learned was that CEL exist solely by exacting fines, which explains their vindictiveness and refusal to listen to reason, which is completely outrageous.

Yes and when they were kicked out by the co-op they retaliated by ticketing more than 50 of co-ops employees. An action which I'm hoping will backfire massively upon them.

Wonderful car park (mis)management. I hope co-op have better luck with horizon

Umkomaas

bluetoffee1878 wrote: »

I hope co-op have better luck with horizon

Ya reckon?

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/business/business-news/mixed-views-over-ticket-to-park-supermarket-scheme-1-7094916

ManxRed

bluetoffee1878 wrote: »

Yes and when they were kicked out by the co-op they retaliated by ticketing more than 50 of co-ops employees. An action which I'm hoping will backfire massively upon them.

Wonderful car park (mis)management. I hope co-op have better luck with horizon

There's no way CEL will turn up for that!