POPLA Decisions

bod1467 · 20 June 2014 at 12:51PM

So PE are maintaining their PSDSU stance for now.

CostCutter · 20 June 2014 at 9:06PM

Hi guys,

I thought I was never going to get a decision but here it is and it is good news :T

I'm so pleased, thank you all for your help!!! :beer:

The appeal was against a PCN at London Luton Airport.
Here is the notice I received today:

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
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
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.

[/FONT][/FONT]

Dee140157 · 20 June 2014 at 9:16PM

An APCOA PSDSU instead of a PE one. Makes a change!

Umkomaas · 20 June 2014 at 10:16PM

Dee140157 wrote: »

An APCOA PSDSU instead of a PE one. Makes a change!

Makes you wonder whether there is a new agenda in formulation? Will help break the tedium of GPEOL! :rotfl:

mrmojorisin04 · 24 June 2014 at 8:42PM

I won my appeal, GPEOL:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Invalid permit’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could have been caused by the alleged breach.
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question.
c) There was insufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to the attention of motorists.
d) The parking charge notice issued to the Appellant does not meet the relevant required criteria of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss which may be caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Provided an initial loss can be demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.

The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge notice. Whilst these heads of loss do not seem to include general operational costs, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The Operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been caused initially by the Appellant’s invalid permit.

I note that the Operator has made reference to a recently decided case; however, no transcript of this case has been produced, nor has it been applied to the facts in this case.

Therefore, taking together the evidence before me, I cannot find that the Operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Christopher Adamson
Assessor

Dee140157 · 24 June 2014 at 8:57PM

Good old Christopher. Someone some day should buy that man a drink.

Umkomaas · 24 June 2014 at 10:10PM

I think the above appeal result (post #1207) relates to Premier Park. Well done mrmo***.

And I do think that Chris Adamson is becoming a bit of a motorist's friend at POPLA, Dee!

andrewf_2 · 25 June 2014 at 1:15PM

Well despite me staring the wrong way and contacting the company direct, help from here got me back on track and success.

............................................................................................

The operator issued parking charge notice number x arising out of the presence at x, on x, of a vehicle with registration mark x. The operator recorded that the vehicle remained at the site for x without purchasing the appropriate parking tariff.

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

It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The signage produced as evidence by the operator states that a parking charge notice will be issued if the motorist "fails to pay" for parking, or in various other circumstances. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the estimate must be based on the loss caused by the breach.

The operator has not justified how the amount of the parking charge notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the burden shifts to the operator to prove otherwise. I find that the operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Amber Ahmed [/FONT][/FONT]

Assessor

LeSigNagE · 25 June 2014 at 1:39PM

(Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx arising out of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx.
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 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.
Christopher Adamson
Assessor

FIRST LETTER SENT TO PARKINGEYE:

[FONT=&quot] I write this letter to formally challenge the parking invoice issued by yourselves on XX/XX/XXXX to the sum of £100.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to your records, on the aforementioned date I used your car park for an alleged 2 hours and 14 minutes. I feel that this charge is unfair as it is grossly disproportionate to the additional amount of time of 14 minutes spent in the car park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would firstly like to note that as this land is privately owned, any contract that I may have entered into is that of a Civil one.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Common law and statute states that a Civil contract cannot punish or penalise the consumer. It is stated by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 that it is “unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract”, and that “an unfair term in a contract … shall not be binding on the consumer”. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Irrespective of the above conditions, according to this regulation, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. I believe that in my case, the £100 charge you have requested by far exceeds any cost to the landowner, especially considering that the car park was not at maximum occupancy at its time of use, and that there was no charge for the initial 2 hour stay in the first place.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Despite my reservations regarding the disproportionate and punitive level of this invoice, as a reasonable person, I am willing to meet this invoice with a renegotiated sum as a gesture of good will.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] However, to do so, I ask that you return this correspondence with the following information:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) Your justification for the charge to the sum of £100. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please could you explain on which of the following grounds your claim is based:-[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Damage for trespass;[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]damage for breach of contract;[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]compensation for loss of earnings or revenue;[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]a contractual sum.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) Your loss.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If it is the case that your claim is one for damages or compensation; please attach a full breakdown of the actual losses which supports that this charge is a true reflection of the damages caused, or earnings lost, solely by the alleged parking contravention.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) Contractual authority.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please provide me with a copy of your contract with the landowner that provides the necessary written authority for the issue and enforcement of your Parking Charge Notice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) Evidence of appropriate signage.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please send me photographs of the signs that you display and upon which you feel that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner. Please also provide diagrams showing the locations and layout of those signs at the car park. I feel it would also be beneficial to provide evidence that the wording is in plain and intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s entry point.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As a reasonable person, I have enclosed my proposal for reasonable compensation to yourselves for the alleged additional time spent in your car park. Find this below:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Maximum stated duration of stay: 2 hours
Alleged additional time of stay: 14 minutes
Charge for initial 2 hours: £0.00
Proportionate charge for alleged additional stay: £0.00[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Total proposed compensation: £0.00[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Should you wish to accept the proposed £0.00 compensation, please confirm this by return of this communication. If you would like to enter into a negotiation for an adjusted sum, please attach the above requested information to your future communication.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours Faithfully,[/FONT]

xxxxxxxxx

APPEAL TO POPLA:

I would like to formally challenge the parking invoice given to myself by ParkingEye Ltd. After receiving the invoice, I contacted ParkingEye Ltd to dispute this and requested additional information from them. Their response did not address any of my queries but merely stated various court rulings in their favour, none of which were even relevant to my situation.
Please find below my main reasons as to why I am challenging this parking invoice:
1) ParkingEye Ltd have not demonstrated that they have the authority to issue this parking fine. A request was made by myself for ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence of this, but this was ignored.

2) ParkingEye Ltd have not demonstrated appropriate signage. A request was made by myself for ParkingEye Ltd to demonstrate this – which was ignored. I submit that without the evidence of appropriate signage (frequency, location, maintenance, wording), it is unfair to suggest that a contract was entered into, and therefore attempt to enforce any charges for an alleged breach of said contract.

3) The charge is punitive. I submit that a charge is grossly unfair, disproportionate, and punitive – contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 also states that it is “unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract”, and that “an unfair term in a contract … shall not be binding on the consumer”. By this, I feel that any contract that may have been entered into should not be binding. I also consider this charge to be a penalty because ParkingEye Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).

4) The parking charge was disproportionate to the alleged accusation and a non-genuine pre-estimate of loss. Any estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I therefore require the ParkingEye Ltd to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time.

taffy881 · 25 June 2014 at 2:03PM

************** (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ************* arising out of a presence on private land, 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 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.

Christopher Adamson

Assessor

Another win for the good guys! :j

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Categories

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