POPLA Decisions

madmum33 · 31 October 2014 at 11:53AM

Another success! Thank you to those who write the templates, without your help I would never have felt able to do this.

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx/xxxxxx arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

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. Xxxxxxxxxx x 30 October 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

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.

Shehla Pirwany

Assessor

jazzyb88 · 31 October 2014 at 12:50PM

Just received my appeal decision from POPLA and it is another win against G24.

Interestingly, the assessor felt the signage was adequate, despite it not being lit and me having parked at night...

I won on GPEOL. Thanks to all those who helped and continue to help others! :beer:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 28 August 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.

It is the operator’s case that there was a maximum free stay of 120 minutes at the parking site, which the appellant overstayed. 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 operator’s automatic number plate recognition system which shows the appellant’s vehicle, registration number XXXXXXX, entered the site at 17:52 and exited at 20:16, a total stay of 144 minutes.

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. However the operator has not produced a breakdown of the costs incurred directly as a result of the appellant’s alleged breach. Therefore, in consideration of all the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden and proved that the parking charge amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Farah Ahmad
Assessor

Umkomaas · 31 October 2014 at 1:37PM

Well done on your win.

However, on your point about unlit signage, I think you were struggling a bit to argue it was 'at night' (and dark) at 17.52 On 28th August. Sunset at that time of year is ~8.00pm.

Not that G24 were likely to have spotted that.

rps2 · 1 November 2014 at 12:03AM

Mr xxxx (Appellant)

-v-

UK Parking Control Limited (Operator)

Appeal Thread along with the Assessors Reply @ http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5059495

Again many thanks to ALL !

trisontana · 2 November 2014 at 11:51PM

podoman wrote: »

Hi

this is great stuff however I have not seen anything that is of help in my situation. I received a PCN from CPS midlands, the location given is one that could refer to more than one location. 3 circumstances have been ticked off on the list of "offences", 1. parking in the restricted area of the car park, the area is NOT a car park, 2. parking without displaying a valid ticket or permit - no tickets/ permits obtainable as no machine as NOT a car park, nor were there details of where they could be obtained. 3. unauthorised parking - no details of how to park authorised available.

I note the advice given about appealing on the grounds that the fee, £100 is excessive and disproportionate to any loss - in this case there was no possible loss, the amount is a deterrent. Do I just proceed as others in car parks have done or do I need to plough my own furrow on this one.

I also note some details on the pcn were not completed by the issuer and therefore I can not return the slip correctly and fully completed as demanded by cps, does this void the pcn?

Any advice gratefully received, many thanks in anticipation.

You really need to start your own thread instead if hijacking this one which is about POPLA decisions.

podoman · 3 November 2014 at 12:14AM

have done so, though I expect no one will see it given there are so many.

Coupon-mad · 3 November 2014 at 1:42AM

That's where you are wrong - you already have replies! You don't seem to realise that every time you reply on, or start a thread it goes to the top!

zafiradad1980 · 3 November 2014 at 11:20AM

I've received an email from Popla to say:

Zafiradad v NCP Limited

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.

Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has provided a list of heads of loss but has not ascribed amounts to each. Therefore, as the head of loss for overheads is not a loss which can properly be claimed as a genuine pre-estimate of loss, since it does not flow from the breach, and I am unable to know how much of the genuine pre-estimate is composed of that head, I am unable to know whether the appropriate heads of loss add up to a sum represented by a charge of £75. Therefore, I must find that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and is an unenforceable penalty.

Christopher Monk

Assessor

Thanks everyone for helping with this.

Umkomaas · 3 November 2014 at 11:27AM

zafiradad1980 wrote: »

I've received an email from Popla to say:

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.

Considering all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has provided a list of heads of loss but has not ascribed amounts to each. Therefore, as the head of loss for overheads is not a loss which can properly be claimed as a genuine pre-estimate of loss, since it does not flow from the breach, and I am unable to know how much of the genuine pre-estimate is composed of that head, I am unable to know whether the appropriate heads of loss add up to a sum represented by a charge of £75. Therefore, I must find that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and is an unenforceable penalty.

Thanks everyone for helping with this.

Well done. The name of the PPC and that of the Assessor would really help set things in better context. Would you please edit and add to your post above?

a_confused_driver · 3 November 2014 at 11:34AM

Hi All,

Just wanted to share that I followed the advice on here and have just had a successful appeal with POPLA against Met Parking.

I've listed the reasons below.

Thanks for the advice.

:):):):):):):):)

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

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.

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

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