POPLA Decisions

nicksss · 15 November 2014 at 2:41PM

Win, win for moi. Thank you to all on these forums.

Extract from Popla response:

"Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an Appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

While the Operator has purported to produce a contract, the document provided is so heavily redacted that I am unable to tell if the Operator had authority for the site on the date in question.

Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
Nadesh Karunairetnam
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][/FONT]

scorpio_on_blue_moon · 16 November 2014 at 11:40AM

Thank you very much all the members of this forum. Your guidance has really helped me escape from this trap.

Just got my POPLA appeal allowed against Highview, based on "the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss".

From POPLA reply:
"It is the Operator’s case that the Appellant parked their vehicle in excess of the maximum permitted stay and by doing so, they breached the terms and conditions of parking as set out on signage at the site.

The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

As the Appellant has raised the issue of the charge not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to prove that it is. The Operator has responded by stating that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator has provided a table showing the losses they have incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. I note that the Operator states their initial loss is the average spend of £19.50 as this is what would have been spent by
another customer had the Appellant not overstayed. The Operator has not stated how this average spend is calculated nor am I satisfied that this initial loss has been properly justified.

Considering carefully all of the evidence before me, I find that the Operator has not properly justified that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Nozir Uddin
Assessor"

Link to discussion thread: http : / / forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5073205

trisontana · 16 November 2014 at 11:52AM

Once again it raises the question, who's loss (based on the "average spend", the parking company's or the store's?

StaffsSW · 17 November 2014 at 12:26PM

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx arising out of the presence at Toys ‘R’ Us, Oxford, on 11/09/2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XX11XXX
.
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

At xxxxPM on xx September 2014, a vehicle with registration mark XX12XXX was recorded exiting Toys ‘R’ Us, Oxford after a stay of 340 minutes. The car park is a 150 minute maximum stay car park and a parking charge notice was issued for parking in excess of the maximum permitted stay.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions applicable to the site state that the car park is a 150 minute maximum stay car park. The terms and conditions are displayed on signage at the entrance and throughout the site and as the motorist had parked in excess of the maximum permitted stay, he was parked in breach of the terms and conditions.

The Appellant’s case is that:
a) The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
b) The Operator has not shown that they have the standing or authority to levy charges.
c) The charge is an unlawful penalty charge.
d) The ANPR at the site is inaccurate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Appellant has stated that the Operator has failed to show that they have the authority to levy charges.

The onus is then on the Operator to show that they have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in breach of the terms and conditions. It is for the Operator to address the issues raised by the Appellant and in this case, the Operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract or a signed witness statement which grants them the authority to enforce restrictions at the site. I consequently have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the Operator does not have the authority to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in contravention of the terms and conditions. It does not fall to me to decide any other issues raised by the Appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany

StaffsSW · 17 November 2014 at 12:28PM

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At xx:xx on the xx September 2014, a vehicle with registration mark XX12XXX was recorded exiting Homebase, London after a stay of 171 minutes. The car park is a 120 minute maximum stay car park and a parking charge notice was issued for parking in excess of the maximum permitted stay.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions applicable to the site state that the car park is a 120 minute maximum stay car park. The terms and conditions are displayed on signage at the entrance and throughout the site and as the motorist had parked in excess of the maximum permitted stay, he was parked in breach of the terms and conditions.

The Appellant’s case is that:
a) The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
b) The Operator has not shown that they have the standing or authority to levy charges.
c) The charge is an unlawful penalty charge.
d) The ANPR at the site is inaccurate and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Appellant has stated that the Operator has failed to show that they have the authority to levy charges. The onus is then on the Operator to show that they have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in breach of the terms and conditions. It is for the Operator to address the issues raised by the Appellant and in this case, the Operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract or a signed witness statement which grants them the authority to enforce restrictions at the site. I consequently have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the Operator does not have the authority to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in contravention of the terms and conditions. It does not fall to me to decide any other issues raised by the Appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany

Umkomaas · 17 November 2014 at 12:56PM

Posts 1546 and 1547 are identical template upheld appeal transcripts, apart from the location and number of minutes that parking is allowed.

Not much time spent in shelling these out, suggesting a 'quick glance' strategy of finding the key knock out blows, fill in the variable boxes, then press the button.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Appellant has stated that the Operator has failed to show that they have the authority to levy charges.

Hmmm!

davidso · 19 November 2014 at 1:05PM

[FONT= ]POPLA upheld my appeal against a ticket put on my car in Angmering-on-sea.[/FONT]

[FONT= ][/FONT]
[FONT= ]Extract from the decision:
[/FONT]
[FONT= ]
[/FONT]
[FONT= ]
[/FONT]
[FONT= ]Reasons for the Assessor’s [/FONT][FONT= ]Determination [/FONT]
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and received a parking charge notice after the operator’s employee observed the vehicle but did not observe a permit displayed as required.
The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which this appeal is allowed, that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected these representations, but did not supply a genuine pre-estimate of loss statement. As the burden is on the operator, as they assert that the appellant owes them money, to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, I must find that the charge was not a genuine pre- estimate of loss. Upon viewing the signage in the operator’s photographic evidence, it is clear that the appellant was not given permission to park as they did in return for payment. This means that the charge is not consideration. Therefore, as the charge is not either of the forms of enforceable charges, I must find that it is an unenforceable penalty.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
[FONT= ]Christopher Monk [/FONT]
Assessor

KiloFoxtrot · 19 November 2014 at 7:13PM

Today i received notice of my appeal against EXCEL Parking for a PCN issued at Crown Point Retail Leeds.

I used the proforma letter from this website and won the appeal based on the fact that the "Charges" did not reflect a true loss.

Quote "
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 31 July 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark YxxxxxGZ. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket or permit.
The appellant made many representations; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator submitted a breakdown of the losses they incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as the debt recovery process and final reminder process costs which cannot be taken into account as the operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach. I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also find that the operator cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate heading of losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because the procedure for dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way so that the appellant can re-appeal to the operator. Therefore I find that it is not reasonable for the operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because it appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage Process”.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor "

Tinker3385 · 20 November 2014 at 2:21AM

The Operator [Highview Parking] issued parking charge notice number 568140917009
arising out of the presence at Riverside Retail Park B [Norwich], on 17 September 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark*******. 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

On 29 September 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark *********. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked in violation of the terms displayed on the signage.

The appellant raised more than one ground of appeal. However, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant challenged the authority of the operator to issue parking charges for the land in question. Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it is not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement.

This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specially raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority. The operator has produced a witness statement which purports to show that the operator had authority at the time the parking charge notice was issued. However, I am unable to accept this document as sufficient. The document
states that the operator may cease to have authority prior to when the parking charge was issued, and while it states that the operator did have authority at that time, the document is dated over a month before the parking event. Thus, the document does not prove on balance that the
operator had authority at the time of the parking event.

Consequently, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the appellant’s submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad · 20 November 2014 at 9:32AM

The operator has produced a witness statement which purports to show that the operator had authority at the time the parking charge notice was issued. However, I am unable to accept this document as sufficient. The document
states that the operator may cease to have authority prior to when the parking charge was issued, and while it states that the operator did have authority at that time, the document is dated over a month before the parking event. Thus, the document does not prove on balance that the operator had authority at the time of the parking event.

Does anyone understand that?!

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free