Popla appeal refused. Should I now pay?

RMWilliams23

Hi all,

just had an email back today saying my popla appeal has been refused as it was mitigating circumstances, even though I outlined a number of reasons based on one of your templates in my evidence which they seem to have ignored. My car was parked out of the way but not in my bay in my parking facility as there was a car parked in my bay at the time. I also added that signs weren't correct size and that damages would not amount to the fine being demanded (taken from a template letter).

This is the Popla decision wording:


-v-
New Generation Parking Management Ltd (Operator)

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils Calls to and from Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant parked their vehicle on the roadway and this was a breach of the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.
It is the Appellant’s case that they found another vehicle parked in their bay so had no choice but to park where they did for 1 hour until their bay became available. The Appellant states that in the interim they tried to find out who had parked in their bay but were unable to do so.

I note the Appellant’s submissions, however, these amount to mitigation. The Assessor is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and applying relevant law. As in the statutory schemes, the Assessor has no power to consider mitigating circumstances of any description. This discretion rests solely with the Operator who issued the parking charge notice.
Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of parking were clear on a number of signs at the site and would have been visible to the Appellant. The signs made it clear that roadway parking is prohibited. I find that the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of parking by parking on the roadway. If the Appellant was unable to park in their allocated bay, they ought to have called the Operator to seek advice or refrained from parking at the site. The onus is on the Appellant to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site and on this occasion, they did not do so.

Accordingly, this appeal is refused.



After this refusal should I simply pay the £100 or still refuse? Wanted to know the best procedure here.

Thanks

Redx

its your choice, the popla decision isnt binding on you and the PPC has 6 years to pursue the alleged debt (its not a fine and never was, it was a speculative invoice)

I strongly suggest you edit the post above, removing the surname , reference and VRN from it at the very least

there are no popla template letters on here, only appeals by previous members

the template letter in the NEWBIES sticky thread is for the PPC at the initial appeal, not popla

fisherjim

It is difficult for the regulars to comment on the decision, without seeing your appeal in full.
But why on earth did you put those mitigating reasons in at all, they should only have been tried on the PPC, who would reject anyway, but POPLA do not consider mitigation as stated on here and by them!

enfield_freddy

" If the Appellant was unable to park in their allocated bay, they ought to have called the Operator to seek advice or refrained from parking at the site"


and what would the operator have done , ticketed the other car , towed it away , think not.


if this was a paid for space the operator has failed to meet his commitment's and should pay the "accused" £100 in compensation




lots of flying pigs , this morning.




as stated above POPLa is not binding on the "accused" , and they now know that mitigation does not work , if the muppets want to try it in court , the OP knows the wording NOT to use

RMWilliams23

Thanks for your replies. The only thing I'm worried about is the price going up the longer I leave it and in theory being made to pay more than £100 in the future.

The_Deep

IMO, it is most unlikely that the PPC would try court, they are unlikely to have a proper contract with you, your leasehold/AST rights almost certainly trump their claims, their actions may well breach your rights to "quiet enjoyment", possibly in breach of Landlord and Tenants Avts, and they have lost nothing.

If they are claiming contractual charge they may fall foul of business rates and v.a.t. requirements, so they have several mountains to claim.

I would ignore everything from them, (or solicitors), unless it is a LBA or genuine court papers.

Redx

the price is what a judge determines in a small claims court

this could be nothing as the judge may rule in your favour, you may even win costs, it may never go to court, the future cannot be predicted

obviously the PPC or debt collectors could aim for say £150 to £200 but they still have to prove the case to a judge and then the judge decides the value , not the PPC or debt collector

it may never happen !

you may win if it does , but at least in the future you would come on here and ask for help and use correct appeal wordings which I doubt that you did in your popla appeal, which I suspect was totally flawed and badly written

after 6 years they can do nothing at all

salmosalaris

File and ignore until a proper LBC or claim arrives

RMWilliams23

This was my evidence statement which I thought would be adequate for popla (not the case):


My letter to NGP explaining the circumstances were rejected. Although the car park in question is the car park in which I reside and therefore am not trespassing. They have registered my vehicle as a valid holder of a space at this address but have ignored this fact and continued with issuing a parking notice. The vehicle was also not in any way impeding or obstructing. I am therefore appealing on the following grounds:

1) The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre- estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In this case, NGP has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £60 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that NGP has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case as the vehicle was not obstructing or impeding and as I am an actual resident.

2) The sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £60 on days 1 to 14, then £100 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by NGP.

3) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999):
Private Parking Company charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

4) Under the British Parking Association Operator Code of Practice that NGP should adhere to it states that:
A8.2 Entrance signs, located at the entrance to the car park, must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions which they must be aware of. Entrance signs must meet minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the anticipated speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and follow Department for Transport guidance.
Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

5) It is a requirement for the PPC to supply to POPLA a copy of the site agreement/ contract with the owner/occupier, as I contend that:
a) It's not BPA Code of conduct compliant, and
b) It doesn't give NGP the legal standing to allege trespass or to allege contract seeing as the consideration of the parking places is already expressly offered by the owner/occupier.
c) As I am a resident of this parking facility and pay full rent to give me this privilege, there is no breach of contract. So without trespass/loss, contractual agreement or breach of contract there is no merit at all to NGP's charge.

6) It is my contention that NGP do not adhere to the BPC code of conduct in the operation of this carpark in the use and design of its signs!

The Appellant therefore invites the Adjudicator to uphold the appeal, and to cancel the parking charge.
Sincerely,

ManxRed

RMWilliams23 wrote: »

I note the Appellant’s submissions, however, these amount to mitigation.

If that's what you submitted to POPLA then that statement above is patently untrue.

I would be firing off a complaint to the Lead Adjudicator that you wish to complain about the conduct of an assessor, and state that any reasonable person, let alone a trained legal assessor, could not possibly come to the conclusion that your appeal amount to 'mitigation'.

salmosalaris

Id appeal that decision to the Kead Adjudicator.
None of your points have been addressed.
Did New Generation send you their evidence ?
Who is the assessor ?