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
    • 230Posts
    • 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 40
    • Aaron Aadvark
    • By Aaron Aadvark 31st Jan 14, 12:57 PM
    • 230 Posts
    • 409 Thanks
    Aaron Aadvark
    Breastfeeding is not a mitigating circumstance according to POPLA!

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4790743&page=2

    "Reasons for the Assessorís Determination

    The Operator issued a parking charge notice (ĎPCNí) for overstaying the maximum time permitted. The Operatorís automatic number plate

    recognition system (ĎANPRí) observed the Appellantís vehicle enter the site at 15:59 and exit at 18:11, a stay of 2 hours and 12 minutes. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms of parking which limited parking to 2 hours. The Operator has produced photos of site signage in support of its case.

    The Appellant disputes that the vehicle was improperly parked. It is the Appellantís case that any overstay was accidental and incurred whilst breastfeeding her fourteen-week-old baby. The Appellant produced a copy of her babyís Personal Child Health Record to show that she was breastfeeding her baby around the time the PCN was issued.


    That it was an advertised condition that parking was restricted to 2 hours is not disputed. The Operator does not dispute that the Appellant fed her baby whilst parked at the site. However, it was the Appellantís responsibility to park in compliance with the terms of parking advertised. It was therefore incumbent upon her to ensure that, whatever her reasons for parking, she did not stay beyond 2 hours.

    Having carefully reviewed the evidence before me, I find that by overstaying the maximum time permitted the Appellant became liable for a parking charge in accordance with the terms displayed.

    The appeal is refused.

    Matthew Shaw
    Assessor"

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Jan 14, 1:08 PM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I will speak to the OP about this by pm with a view to a complaint under the EA.
    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
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 31st Jan 14, 2:13 PM
    • 14,794 Posts
    • 13,463 Thanks
    bod1467
    Bear in mind that POPLA explicitly state on their website that mitigating circumstances will not be considered as acceptable appeal points.

    (I appreciate that the Equality Act conveys legal rights).
    • teabelly
    • By teabelly 31st Jan 14, 3:48 PM
    • 1,207 Posts
    • 1,080 Thanks
    teabelly
    BPA code of practice requires adjustments. Therefore POPLA have missed this as a breach of BPA code surely?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Jan 14, 4:04 PM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Breach of BPA CoP does not win a POPLA appeal on its own. But a breach of discrimination law should, as it is the 'applicable law'. Trouble is POPLA don't geddit yet.
    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
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 31st Jan 14, 4:09 PM
    • 2,600 Posts
    • 7,538 Thanks
    bargepole
    Breach of BPA CoP does not win a POPLA appeal on its own. But a breach of discrimination law should, as it is the 'applicable law'. Trouble is POPLA don't geddit yet.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Would it not be the case that PE could claim they were not aware of the need to make reasonable adjustments, since they only monitor times of arrival and departure via ANPR.

    But, as POPLA were aware of it through the appellant's submission, they are the ones who fell foul of the EA, and therefore any claim should be against London Councils, the body which controls POPLA?

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 39, lost 11), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am a Graduate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • teabelly
    • By teabelly 31st Jan 14, 4:11 PM
    • 1,207 Posts
    • 1,080 Thanks
    teabelly
    Breach of BPA CoP does not win a POPLA appeal on its own. But a breach of discrimination law should, as it is the 'applicable law'. Trouble is POPLA don't geddit yet.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    If a breach of BPA code doesn't get a ticket thrown out on its own it seems pointless to have this code in the first place. Which is probably why PPCs know they can ignore it and run roughshod over people bleating about minor transgressions and simultaneously ignoring a code they are supposed to adhere to. POPLA need a kick up the butt on this point!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Jan 14, 4:32 PM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If a breach of BPA code doesn't get a ticket thrown out on its own it seems pointless to have this code in the first place. Which is probably why PPCs know they can ignore it and run roughshod over people bleating about minor transgressions and simultaneously ignoring a code they are supposed to adhere to. POPLA need a kick up the butt on this point!
    Originally posted by teabelly

    See my bold below:


    Dear Sir or Madam

    Your recent email has been passed to the Lead Adjudicator.

    Assessors consider each appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, consideration of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and application of relevant law. However, a breach of the Code would not of itself amount to a ground of appeal and Assessors cannot consider mitigating circumstances. The former may be a matter for the BPA and the latter is a matter for the individual operator.

    Our website has much information that may assist an appellant but I must inform you that POPLA is not an ombudsman service. Complaints about car park operators can more properly be addressed to the BPA, of which any operator who issued a parking charge notices that come before POPLA be a member, in particular of their Approved Operator Scheme.

    Yours sincerely,

    Richard Reeve




    POPLA has failed on 'application of relevant law' (the Equality Act 2010 in this instance, and their own statutory duties under the EHRC Code of Practice for the Equality Act) and the OP should complain like the other poster I am aware of, who is doing the same.

    http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf

    Wouldn't have taken POPLA long to check the law on the matter. This is not mitigation. This is POPLA upholding discrimination, when they are a service provider themselves.


    I guess these discussion posts need moving now!!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 31-01-2014 at 4:38 PM.
    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
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 31st Jan 14, 5:53 PM
    • 10,891 Posts
    • 10,394 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    See my bold below:


    Dear Sir or Madam

    Your recent email has been passed to the Lead Adjudicator.

    Assessors consider each appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, consideration of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and application of relevant law. However, a breach of the Code would not of itself amount to a ground of appeal and Assessors cannot consider mitigating circumstances. The former may be a matter for the BPA and the latter is a matter for the individual operator.

    Our website has much information that may assist an appellant but I must inform you that POPLA is not an ombudsman service. Complaints about car park operators can more properly be addressed to the BPA, of which any operator who issued a parking charge notices that come before POPLA be a member, in particular of their Approved Operator Scheme.

    Yours sincerely,

    Richard Reeve




    POPLA has failed on 'application of relevant law' (the Equality Act 2010 in this instance, and their own statutory duties under the EHRC Code of Practice for the Equality Act) and the OP should complain like the other poster I am aware of, who is doing the same.

    http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/breastfeedingpublicplace.pdf

    Wouldn't have taken POPLA long to check the law on the matter. This is not mitigation. This is POPLA upholding discrimination, when they are a service provider themselves.


    I guess these discussion posts need moving now!!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Remembering that POPLA only consider parking issues and may be blind to other matters, then any claim based on EA law needs to be spelled out to POPLA adjudicators in an appeal.

    Obviously the law of the land must be adhered to and takes precedence over commercial parking matters.

    So, the appeal must not only refer to the appropriate act, but should quote the relevant sections and the POPLA adjudicator must have their attention drawn to the law and a persuasive argument put insisting that English Law must take precedence.

    As said, the experience of the POPLA adjudicators may be limited and specialised, but a properly laid out appeal on clear EA points of law should concentrate the mind of even the most novice adjudicator.

    Is this where you can apply your EA knowledge to home in on this even more than you have done already??
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 31st Jan 14, 9:07 PM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I did exactly that for the other poster - who knew he could have appealed on the usual stuff but wanted to try . POPLA appeal lost. Complaint is in and a planned complaint to the EHRC.
    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
    • Redx
    • By Redx 1st Feb 14, 7:52 AM
    • 25,036 Posts
    • 31,996 Thanks
    Redx
    VCS at Humberside airport - another win on not as gpeol

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4821037&page=2 post #31

    "It is the Appellant’s case that he is not liable for the parking charge sought as
    the charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by his
    breach.
    The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in
    other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge
    must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The
    estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking
    terms.
    The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as
    they incur significant costs in managing this car park in order to ensure
    motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any
    breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs which includes
    a comparatively large ‘further process cost’.
    I therefore find that a substantial proportion of the costs referred to do not
    represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. Consequently, I cannot
    find that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine preestimate
    of loss.
    I need not decide any other issues.
    Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

    Marina
    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
    • AoD
    • By AoD 1st Feb 14, 5:53 PM
    • 166 Posts
    • 219 Thanks
    AoD
    So following my earlier post in this thread, we have just had the latest POPLA result in for another neighbour I have been helping. Again, it looks like PCM threw in the towel when they saw the POPLA appeal (no GPEOL, no contract, etc etc)

    At the same time both myself and another neighbour had our appeals upheld by PCM! I've been going in with fairly hard appeals to PCM and it's obviously working. Something unheard of pre POPLA! That's another £300 they're not getting their hands on :-)

    Having read some recent similar PCM decisions it does seem that PCM know when they see a winning appeal and have decided it's better to cancel it than lose £30 at POPLA!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Feb 14, 12:44 PM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A POPLA win against VCS at John Lennon Airport, no GPEOL, and by FARAH AHMAD as well!


    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85860&st=20


    Reasons for the Assessorís Determination

    On XXXXXXX 2013, at John Lennon Airport, the appellant was issued with
    a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the
    parking site.

    It is the operatorís case that the appellant stopped his vehicle in a no
    stopping area despite signage erected at the site to prohibit this. There is
    photographic evidence to support that there was adequate signage at the
    site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions. There is also
    evidence from the operatorís automatic number plate recognition system
    which shows the appellantís vehicle stopped in a no stopping area.

    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 burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although the operator has addressed this, I find that they have failed to establish a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

    Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

    Farah Ahmad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Assessor
    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
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 4th Feb 14, 2:03 PM
    • 14,794 Posts
    • 13,463 Thanks
    bod1467
    Has she (guessing) finally come to her senses?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Feb 14, 3:02 PM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    CEL threw in the towel at POPLA when sussed trying to charge for a double visit:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4887068


    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
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 4th Feb 14, 9:34 PM
    • 9,031 Posts
    • 13,979 Thanks
    trisontana
    Like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet another no GPEOL for Parking Eye:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87611&hl=
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • Stroma
    • By Stroma 4th Feb 14, 11:53 PM
    • 7,917 Posts
    • 8,408 Thanks
    Stroma
    A loss, but take a look at the wording used, take note people going to popla, don't use mitigation! This could have easily been a win if they followed advice given to them

    Stroma, glad to. Appeal as sent to POPLA on 20/07/13:

    Dear POPLA The reason the TPS notice had been issued was that I was "observed leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained parked on the premises" and that "the vehicle was parked between 13:35 and 14:07". Whilst I did leave the site, albeit briefly, there is nothing in their displayed rules and regulations to say that a customer of Halfords may only shop at Halfords and nowhere else. My intention was to quickly get some items from the nearby Asda, return to put the shopping in the car and then buy the items I needed at Halfords. The alternative was to first drive to Halfords, then Asda and return to Halfords which is obviously a less efficient journey. The only time I left the Halfords car park was on my arrival at 13:35, as the notice says, and therefore I conclude the motive behind issuing the notice wasn't the length of time I stayed in that car park per se, but rather that I had not bought anything in the Halfords store. I am suspicious of this notice for two main reasons: (1) I returned to the Halfords car park before 14:07 to find the notice issued. (2) When I left the car park, there was nobody walking around. So how could a parking attendant possibly know that I had left the car park? I acknowledge that my appeal is a couple of days over the 28 day limit and I apologise for this as I had been away on business. I would be grateful if you could still consider my case. Sincerely...

    ===

    Also sent, again on 20/07/13:

    I would like to add some information to my appeal that was recently submitted, and apologise for not including this originally.

    Vehicle Reg: xxxx xxx

    Additionally, I am contending that anyone claiming damages for breach of contract must "mitigate their loss", that is, they must do what they can to reduce their losses. TPS is effectively claiming that a visit to a neighbouring supermarket cost them £90, but of course they could have reduced that loss to zero if their employee who observed me leaving the site had simply called after you and warned you of the consequences of leaving. Therefore, they failed to mitigate their losses.

    ===

    POPLAs final decision was sent 20/12/13:

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxx arising
    out of the presence at Halfords, Sutton, on 18 May 2013, of a vehicle
    with registration mark xxxxxxx.
    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
    £90 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
    Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
    operator.

    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
    On 18 May 2013, a Silver xxxxxxxxx with the registration mark xxxxxxx was observed in the Halfords Car Park.
    It is the Operator’s case that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the car park and at entrance, and by leaving the premises the Appellant caused a breach of the following condition; “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections regularly carried out”.
    The Appellant’ case is that he was a customer of Halfords but also visited the nearby Asda Supermarket. The Appellant submits that “there is nothing in their displayed rules and regulations to say that a customer of Halfords may only shop at Halfords and nowhere else”. The Appellant further adds that the Operator could have mitigated their loss by the parking attendance calling the Appellant back and warning him of the consequences.

    I understand the Appellant’s frustration and the explanation that the
    Appellant was visiting both stores on the occasion. However I must explain the signs at the site that state “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections regularly carried out” –means that when parking at this car park, you must not leave the premises, i.e the Halfords store or the car park, and if you wish to use any other stores you may not leave your car parked in this car park. I further add that when parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility, not the parking attendant’s, to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. The parking attendant is not required to speak to motorists and explain the terms and conditions of the car park when they are clearly displayed.

    Considering all the facts before me, I find that, by failing to abide by the
    terms for parking, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice.

    Unfortunately, I must refuse this appeal.

    Marina Kapour
    Assessor
    Originally posted by maverickpianist84
    When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
    We don't need the following to help you.
    Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
    Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 14, 12:14 AM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Premier Park lost this case on no GPEOL:


    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85925


    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    On 28 October 2013, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark PJXXXXXX for parking in a pay and display car park without displaying a valid parking voucher. The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car park are displayed on numerous signs located at the entrance and throughout the car park. One of the parking rules requires that ‘a valid pay and display voucher must be displayed at all times.’ The Operator says that their photographic images show that the vehicle was parked with no valid pay and display voucher on neither display nor he had payment been made via ‘Ring Go’ on the date of event. They have produced photographic evidence which illustrates this point and they have produced a copy of the parking charge, terms and conditions and their signs.

    The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of the excessive charge. The Appellant says that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred by parking for longer than the stay authorised. They state that each appeal will turn on its own facts but it is clear that a genuine pre-estimate of loss need not be a detailed estimate for each particular case.

    They state that it is not the specific loss caused by the actual breach but may include loss incurred or loss that might reasonably be incurred. Furthermore, they accept that it cannot include sums that are really the general business costs of the Operators parking operations. They state that what is acceptable in assessing this loss are the following: DVLA and associated costs, loss of revenue at a retail park, wages and salaries of staff involved. They say that the courts have accepted commercial justification for charges in this regard.

    Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find that the Operator in this case refers to general principles but does not appear to specify the actual heads of loss. I note that some heads submitted in this present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nevertheless, I find that a substantial proportion of them do not. Equally for the reasons, set out above, a list of all their costs in the case cannot amount to commercial justification. In short, the damages sought on this particular occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss or fall within commercial justification.

    Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Feb 14, 12:22 AM
    • 76,680 Posts
    • 90,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I don't think we've seen this one? JAS lost on 'no GPEOL':


    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80914


    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
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 5th Feb 14, 11:05 AM
    • 9,031 Posts
    • 13,979 Thanks
    trisontana
    It seems that Parking Eye just gave up on this one:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84707&st=20&start=20

    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.

    Chris A******
    Assessor
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
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

2,721Posts Today

7,827Users online

Martin's Twitter