Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 9th Mar 13, 4:49 PM
    • 231Posts
    • 409Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    POPLA Decisions
    • #1
    • 9th Mar 13, 4:49 PM
    POPLA Decisions 9th Mar 13 at 4:49 PM
    MSE Note:

    Hi! Please don't post any private details (yours or other peoples) on the forum for privacy reasons. Thanks!

    MSE Official Insert:

    Read our MoneySaving UK Travel & Transport guides to save more including Fight Private Parking Tickets and Parking Ticket Appeals.

    Back to Aaron Aadvark's original post....

    ----------------------------


    This thread is intended to be a compilation of all published POPLA decisions.

    Please add any decisions you are aware of.

    Please do not post requests for advice on this thread.

    Please start a new thread if you are looking advice.
    Last edited by Former MSE Andrea; 28-10-2016 at 8:29 AM.
Page 36
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 26th Dec 13, 9:49 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    A GPEOL for Apcoa:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81960&st=20&start=20

    "Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated that the wording of the sign indicates that the charge is damages and therefore as I am unable to determine the terms and conditions from the signage provided by the operator and the operator has not disputed that the charge sought is damages, I am satisfied that this would indicate that the charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation, agreed in advance; this means that the breach should represent the actual loss caused. The operator has failed to reference the loss incurred and therefore I have no evidence to dispute the appellant’s claim that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of the loss incurred as a result of parking over two bays. As a result of this, I am not required to address the other issues raised by the appellant.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

    Edit, Shehla Pirwany was the assessor
    Last edited by trisontana; 27-12-2013 at 6:12 PM.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 28th Dec 13, 7:34 AM
    • 1,679 Posts
    • 3,118 Thanks
    hoohoo
    98th known ParkingEye loss

    ItalianBoy reports POPLA rule on...GPEOL
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4736278
  • Big Bad Dad

    Although the Operator has produced a breakdown of costs incurred in managing the parking site, this is a general list of operational costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.


    The Operator has stated that there is a commercial justification for the parking charge and they have listed general business costs, however, this does not amount to commercial justification.


    The Operator states that they have incurred the costs of, amongst other things, the erection and maintenance of signage in the site. However these costs were not incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would have been incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of the parking site.
    Originally posted by Parking-Prankster
    It's a good thing POPLA has woken up to this farce.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 29th Dec 13, 6:54 AM
    • 1,118 Posts
    • 886 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    IIRC a few firms have the wording that the 'charge' is an extra parking fee [ie not a 'breach of contract'].


    Has POPLA had any cases in this category yet??
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Dec 13, 6:04 PM
    • 73,747 Posts
    • 85,932 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not recently that we know of - but the reason we say we have 100% record on cases advised about since Easter is because there was a Combined Parking Solutions case on that basis which I helped with in Feb/March 2013 but it was lost (earlier in this thread). We'd try harder with them next time!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Diva0804
    • By Diva0804 2nd Jan 14, 8:20 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Diva0804
    Happy new year everyone. Another win here against Athena ANPR .
    Please see my thread for more details : http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4790403&page=2
    • bobcat2
    • By bobcat2 2nd Jan 14, 7:30 PM
    • 64 Posts
    • 73 Thanks
    bobcat2
    POPLA Win!! Euro Car Parks
    *************(Appellant)
    -v-
    Euro Car Parks Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number ************** arising
    out of the presence at Sainsburys Colney Fields, on **** 2013, 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
    It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
    giving the reason as: ‘Exceeded the maximum free parking time period’. The
    Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the
    clearly displayed terms of parking.

    The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly
    displayed, or that he overstayed the maximum stay time permitted.
    It is the Appellant’s case that:

    a) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the
    breach.

    b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge
    notices in relation to the land in question.

    c) The Operator has not demonstrated that its Automatic Number Plate
    Recognition technology is properly calibrated.

    The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a
    genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.

    There is no dispute that the parking charge represents liquidated damages –
    compensation agreed in advance- for an alleged breach of the parking
    agreement. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The Operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of
    Practice. The BPA code states that Operators must justify in advance any
    parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any
    charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised
    by the Appellant, it is for the Operator to address it.

    The Operator has submitted that such charges have been held to be
    enforceable in previous cases; however, the Operator has not produced any
    evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a
    parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the
    nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to
    be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a preestimate
    of the loss caused in every car park.


    The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge
    as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this
    justification. The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine
    estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the
    Appellant’s overstay. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a
    large number of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses
    consequential to the Appellant’s breach. I am not satisfied that the parking
    charge substantially represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.
    Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a
    genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some
    explanation or evidence in order to tip the balance in its favour.

    In this case the Operator has not provided any evidence as to why this
    charge in a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is
    sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to
    this case.

    Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient
    evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate
    of loss.

    Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

  • Bargains for me
    POPLA WIN v PE
    A big thank you to all on here, I read through and followed the advice on here and threw in all the usual suspects, including no gpeol, no authority, no contract, inadequate signage, no grace period etc, and today received a one pager "one in the eye" reply telling PE what they could do with their extortionate charge

    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.
    The Operator has rejected the Appellant’s submissions in the notice of
    rejection they sent, because they state that by parking for longer than the
    stay authorised, the Appellant breached terms and conditions of parking. The
    burden is on the Operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine preestimate
    of loss. Although the Operator has produced a breakdown of costs
    incurred in managing the parking site, this is a general list of operational costs
    and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of
    the terms and conditions of parking.
    The Operator has stated that there is a commercial justification for the
    parking charge and they have listed general business costs, however, this
    does not amount to commercial justification.
    The Operator states that they have incurred the costs of, amongst other
    things, the erection and maintenance of signage in the site. However these
    costs were not incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would
    have been incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached the terms
    and conditions of the parking site. I am therefore not satisfied that the
    Operator has proved that the amount for the parking charge notice is a
    genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the Operator has failed to
    prove that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Jan 14, 10:08 PM
    • 23,783 Posts
    • 38,080 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Excellent result BFM - and all on your own without direct input from us. Thank you for taking this through all the stages yourself, freeing up regulars' time to help others, and letting us know the outcome. Impressed by your single-mindedness in seeing this through.

    There's not been an 'official count', but you must be somewhere near to being the 100th POPLA winner over PE utilising forum advice.

    Serious Kudos!
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 03-01-2014 at 7:58 AM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 2nd Jan 14, 10:19 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    And still PE churn out the same discredited stuff that their "losses" can include day-to-day running costs plus the expense of erecting cameras and signs. Are they stupid, or are they hoping that there will be some sort of miracle with judges and POPLA assessors suddenly coming round to PE's point of view?
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 2nd Jan 14, 10:21 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    Unless this is a duplication of one on here, this is yet another GPEOL loss for PE:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83676&pid=910042&st=20&#entry9 10042
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • Bargains for me
    Unless this is a duplication of one on here, this is yet another GPEOL loss for PE:-
    Originally posted by trisontana
    No that's not me. Didnt use pepipoo, just followed all of you and threw in some extra . It is Borehamwood Shopping Park where there is no commercial justification for the £85 charge if anyone gets one there in the future
  • kirkbyinfurnesslad
    Heres one of my own from Gallian/paymypcn (run by Roxburghe) looks like they didnt even bother, in response to a popla appeal, i suspect they dont a lot of the time.

    I thought Popla was closed until Monday....

    It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued
    incorrectly.
    The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any
    evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any
    evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
    Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
    • Piemaster
    • By Piemaster 3rd Jan 14, 4:46 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    Piemaster
    Just got another standard win against Parking Eye. I gave them the options of GPEOL or contract (and a couple of other token stabs in the dark). They went with the former.

    I will edit this post copy and paste the text when I can, but the decision came in Acrobat format and for some reason a standard copy/paste leaves the text all garbled.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 3rd Jan 14, 4:56 PM
    • 22,783 Posts
    • 28,989 Thanks
    Redx
    Just got another standard win against Parking Eye. I gave them the options of GPEOL or contract (and a couple of other token stabs in the dark). They went with the former.

    I will edit this post copy and paste the text when I can, but the decision came in Acrobat format and for some reason a standard copy/paste leaves the text all garbled.
    Originally posted by Piemaster
    see post #737 then , and use notepad not word if copying and pasting
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 3rd Jan 14, 7:52 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    Yet another PE GPEOL loss for PE from this FB page:-

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/255720101151896/

    Yay another victory! Just received the result of today's POPLA appeal - a success.
    No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, as predicted.
    This was for a 10min overstay at Home Bargains in Pwllheli, North Wales.
    Thanks for your help!
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • ivyfox
    Win against CE Ltd
    Back in September (29th, to be exact) this forum provided the necessary information for me to lodge an appeal against Civil Enforcement Ltd t/a a whole bunch of names including Starparks. (As a new user I can't post a link, sorry.)

    I'm pleased to report that on 20 December 2013 I received an e-mail from POPLA stating:

    "The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXX.

    Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

    You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator."

    As I received no paperwork from the other side (as I would expect in a civil court case), I guess they failed to file the same with POPLA or else couldn't be bothered and opted to cancel the charge and forego the hassle.

    Thank you again for all the help and constructive comments - another one in the eye for these parking companies!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 3rd Jan 14, 9:47 PM
    • 23,783 Posts
    • 38,080 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Back in September (29th, to be exact) this forum provided the necessary information for me to lodge an appeal against Civil Enforcement Ltd t/a a whole bunch of names including Starparks. (As a new user I can't post a link, sorry.)

    I'm pleased to report that on 20 December 2013 I received an e-mail from POPLA stating:

    "The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXX.

    Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

    You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator."

    As I received no paperwork from the other side (as I would expect in a civil court case), I guess they failed to file the same with POPLA or else couldn't be bothered and opted to cancel the charge and forego the hassle.

    Thank you again for all the help and constructive comments - another one in the eye for these parking companies!
    Originally posted by ivyfox
    They've just saved themselves 27 notes when clearly faced with a non-winnable, forum-fuelled appeal. CEL showing a modicum of common sense when faced with reality - maybe not, they also chicken out when faced with strong, forum-assisted defences at court too.

    Brilliant result ivyfox, against a litigious, but cowardly outfit when robustly challenged.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 03-01-2014 at 9:50 PM.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • 4consumerrights
    • By 4consumerrights 3rd Jan 14, 9:51 PM
    • 1,960 Posts
    • 2,842 Thanks
    4consumerrights
    Not filing paperwork in response to a POPLA appeal seems to be an up and coming trend - I wonder why?

    Does the parking company pay the fee if they fail to submit paperwork?

    Are they planning to regroup after their January meeting?? with new strategies?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Jan 14, 7:50 AM
    • 22,783 Posts
    • 28,989 Thanks
    Redx
    another win against VCS at RHA on not a GPEOL http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4727020&page=2

    LATE EVIDENCE PACK TOO !!

    Ivor Bigun (Appellant)
    -v-
    Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)


    Thee Operator issued parking charge notice number 123456789 arising
    out of the presence at Robin Hood Airport, Approach Roads on 99 May
    2013, of a vehicle with registration mark YXXXXXX.
    The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
    The Assessor has considered thee 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.


    Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee off London Councils
    Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded



    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    Thee operator issued parking charge notice number VCC123456789 arising out of
    The presence at Robin Hood Airport, Approach Roads on 99 May 2013, of a
    Vehicle with registration mark Yxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the
    Vehicle stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.

    The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them
    all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

    The appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge notice is not a
    genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The signage displayed at the site and the case summary provided as
    evidence by the operator show that the amount of the parking charge
    notice is a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach
    of the parking contract..

    In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the
    operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves as
    a result of the appellant’s breach.. Amongst other things, the operator has
    included costs such as write off allowances, which does not amount to a
    genuine pre –– estimate of loss, as this is not a loss resulting from a breach. I find
    that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss
    suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach.

    Considering carefully al l the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
    charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages
    sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate
    of loss.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Amber Ahmed

    Assessor
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,212Posts Today

8,799Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • So how much work do I actually do on the MSE weekly email these days, now I?m in the exhaulted position of ?Executi? https://t.co/b8XWxPiUwn

  • Dear gumtree - I feel I've been sold a kipper. You're advertising has my face on it but I don't do adverts. If yo? https://t.co/kJAuziloOM

  • RT @MoneySavingExp: ????This chap ????@MSE_GuyAnker is responsible for delivering MSE's Weekly Email to 14 million people, 52 weeks of the year.?

  • Follow Martin