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 38
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 15th Jan 14, 9:50 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    Another PE GPEOL loss, with POPLA seemingly in a bit of a mess:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81954&st=40&start=40

    Well, that only took four and a half months from the appeal date and seven months from the alleged offence.

    POPLA appeal FINALLY allowed.

    I got the cancellation letter from PE today, checked my emails and found the POPLA decision; as predicted, they allowed on the pre estimate of loss.

    I can post any documents that might be helpful. Please let me know if anyone would like me to. In the interim I have also been very active with notes on cars and directing people to this website. PePiPoo is (and MSE and Parking Prankster!), fabulous.

    Thank you.


    Ooh... P.S. The reason it took so long? I appealed in August and waited until December. I then phoned POPLA because they sent me an email about an adjournment. They hung up on me. This may have been an accident of course. I phoned back and they said my case had been adjourned because I had not sent in my evidence and could I send it again. I assured them I had sent it by recorded delivery, I was put on hold and told they had lost and then found my evidence; it had been filed in the wrong file. The case could now go ahead. I waited for the Christmas period to pass (chin chin), and then, in January, contacted POPLA again to please deal with my appeal. A test of patience but all is well.
    Last edited by trisontana; 16-01-2014 at 7:22 AM.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 16th Jan 14, 10:03 AM
    • 22,756 Posts
    • 28,952 Thanks
    Redx
    PE again for "not a gpeol loss" for overstay at MEMBURY , M4

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4798390

    well done supertedgb
    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
    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Jan 14, 11:05 AM
    • 22,756 Posts
    • 28,952 Thanks
    Redx
    and yet ANOTHER PE loss due to not a gpeol !!

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816911
    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
    • morrisoscar
    • By morrisoscar 17th Jan 14, 2:51 PM
    • 198 Posts
    • 162 Thanks
    morrisoscar
    VCS Loss Liverpool Airport GPEOL
    Win for my son with help from here

    (Appellant)
    -v-
    Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
    The Operator issued parking charge notice number ***** arising
    out of the presence at John Lennon Airport, on 22 May 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
    On 22 May 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 operator’s case that the appellant stopped her 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 operator’s automatic number plate recognition system
    which shows the appellant’s 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 produced a breakdown of
    costs incurred, these do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate
    of loss. I find that a large proportion of the costs listed by the operator do not
    stem directly from the alleged breach and therefore cannot be included in
    the breakdown of costs provided by the operator to establish a genuine pre estimate
    of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged
    the burden.
    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

    Thanks to coupon mad for edit/ strengthening appeal.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Jan 14, 5:47 PM
    • 22,756 Posts
    • 28,952 Thanks
    Redx
    UKPC loss on retail park due to another not a gpeol http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4761739&page=2
    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 17th Jan 14, 5:56 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    Yet another parking Eye GPEOL loss:-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83059&st=20&start=20

    Thanks for everyone's help regarding my PCN

    I received an email from POPLA today and my appeal has been allowed.

    According to the adjudicator the appeal was allowed only on this point

    "The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of
    the Appellant in relation of the charges provided by the Operator being
    operational costs and they should not be used as a genuine pre-estimate of
    loss in this case."

    Whatever there reason - I'm happy and ParkingEye are probably not.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • John Fletcher
    Decision Allowed

    Assessor: Aurela Qerimi

    Date: 17 February 2013

    Reported:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4764588&page=2

    Successful Grounds: It was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss


    PPC: ParkingEye


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

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number **************
    arising out of the presence at Fistral Beach, on 26 August 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

    On 26 August 2013, a parking charge notice was issued to a vehicle with
    registration mark ******** for parking without purchasing the appropriate
    parking time.

    The Operator’s case is that parking on this site is “Paid Parking Car Park” as
    clearly stated on the signage.

    The Operator says that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed on numerous signs placed at the entrance, exit and throughout the site.

    The Operator says that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed parked for 35 minutes without making payment for parking.

    They have produced copies of the parking charge notice and the signage.
    Photographs of the vehicle taken on the date of the parking event have also
    been enclosed.

    The Appellant made various submissions but I will only consider the point of
    the Appellant in relation of the charges provided by the Operator being
    operational costs and they should not be used as a genuine pre-estimate of
    loss in this case.

    The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice
    of rejection they sent because they state that a breach of the car park
    conditions had occurred by parking without purchasing the appropriate
    parking time.

    They state that they believe that their charges are fair and reasonable and they have provided a list of costs they incur in issuing and enforcing the parking charge which include among other costs but it is not restricted to costs to BPA membership, DVLA, loss of revenue, national insurance and etc.

    Although, the Operator responds to the points raised by the Appellant, I find
    that the Operator in this case refers to general principles and to other cases
    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.

    Aurela Qerimi, Assessor
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 17th Jan 14, 7:47 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    And yet another PE no GPEOL:-

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4871582
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 20th Jan 14, 4:58 PM
    • 22,756 Posts
    • 28,952 Thanks
    Redx
    VCS loss at Humberside Airport , again on not a gpeol

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4832399
    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
  • Capt. Calculator
    (Appellant)
    -v-
    UK Car Park Management Limited (Operator)

    The Operator issued parking charge notice number 906945 arising out
    of the presence at X, on 14 September 2013, of a vehicle
    with registration mark X
    .
    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
    £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
    Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
    operator.
    9663043951 2 17 January 2014
    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
    On 14 September 2013 at Chestnut Court, 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 the appellant’s vehicle was parked without
    displaying a valid permit despite signage at the site to indicate that this was
    necessary to do so. There is photographic evidence to support that there was
    signage at the site to inform motorists of parking terms and conditions. There is
    also photographic evidence to support that the appellant’s vehicle was
    parked without displaying a valid permit.
    It is the appellant’s case that the signage at the site was not clear or
    adequate, as per the BPA code. The appellant also states that the operator
    does not have the authority to issue the parking charge notice and that the
    parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
    In consideration of the evidence before me I find that I find that there is
    photographic evidence which shows that the appellant’s vehicle was parked
    without displaying a valid permit and therefore in breach of the parking terms
    and conditions. There is also evidence to show that there was clear and
    adequate signage at the site. There is also evidence of signage erected
    almost in front of the appellant’s parked vehicle.
    In response to the appellant’s submission that the operator does not have the
    authority to issue the parking charge notice, the operator has provided
    evidence showing that they hold a contractual agreement with the
    landowner, giving the operator the authority to issue the parking charge
    notice. Therefore I find that the operator does have authority to issue the
    parking charge notice.
    In reviewing evidence relating to the signage erected at the site I find that
    the operator has established that they are not seeking damages as a result of
    breach of contract. The signage states “…you are contractually agreeing to
    pay a parking charge fee…” which would indicate consideration and not
    damages. Therefore the operator does not need to establish a genuine pre
    estimate of loss.
    Accordingly the appeal is refused.
    Farah Ahmad
    Assessor
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 21st Jan 14, 6:46 PM
    • 14,794 Posts
    • 13,463 Thanks
    bod1467
    Hmm. Another odd result from this same assessor.

    On 14 September 2013 at Chestnut Court, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site
    What does Farah thinks breaching the terms and conditions means?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jan 14, 8:21 PM
    • 73,709 Posts
    • 85,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Chris Adamson knows what no GPEOL means:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4793386

    Firefly72's thread recounts another typical failure for Excel who always send a list of business costs - and in this case it was the Peel Centre where I understand (allegedly) that in such car parks Excel 'sometimes' have an agreement where money changes hands that isn't mentioned in their calculations and is redacted from the contract (so I heard, so it appears!).


    And this on the same day as Excel were refused an application to re-take a claim to court that their special legal 'expert' had forgotten to turn up for...so I heard. Allegedly.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-01-2014 at 8:23 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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jan 14, 9:56 PM
    • 73,709 Posts
    • 85,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And Total Parking Solutions also shot down by no GPEOL:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4836109


    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 22nd Jan 14, 10:23 PM
    • 73,709 Posts
    • 85,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And the third 'no GPEOL' case today, won against METEOR:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63720889&highlight=#post63720889


    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
  • Spin59
    Peel Centre Appeal - Successful Appeal
    Not sure if this is the correct place to post but just wanted to register my thanks to the members of this forum. I didn't directly ask for advice but found enough useful info on the forums to appeal my ticket from the infamous Peel Centre and was successful on the basis of GPEOL.

    Thanks once again
    • Parking-Prankster
    • By Parking-Prankster 24th Jan 14, 11:12 AM
    • 311 Posts
    • 1,164 Thanks
    Parking-Prankster
    Liverpool John Lennon Airport
    Won on GPEOL
    Assessor felt he did not need to consider the redacted areas of the contract because the appeal has already been allowed.


    The Operator issued parking charge notice number [redacted] arising out of the presence at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, [redacted], of a vehicle with registration mark [redacted]


    Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

    It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’.

    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 charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by the alleged breach.
    b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to the land in question.
    c) There was insufficient signage on site.
    d) The Operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology was non-compliant.

    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. The Operator has not addressed this submission.

    There is no dispute that the charge represents specified damages for breach of contract. Accordingly, the charge must be 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 to tip the balance in its favour. 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 stopping where not permitted. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, this list of heads includes a large proportion which are not related to
    the Appellant’s breach. I do not accept that the parking charge substantially amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

    I note that the Appellant responded to the Operator’s evidence by submitting that the contract produced between the parties was deliberately redacted to remove clauses which would have shown the Operator’s justification of the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss to be untrue; however, given that I have found the Operator’s did not in fact justify the
    charge, I need not address this issue any further.


    Prankster's note


    VCS submitted their new 2013 contract. However, the redacted areas exactly matched those in the 2012 contract which showed VCS pay £25,000 a year to the airport, plus also up to 35% commission on each ticket.


    The Prankster therefore recommends this is pointed out to POPLA in every appeal.
    Hi, we’ve approved your signature. It's awesome. Please email the forum team if you want more praise - MSE ForumTeam
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Jan 14, 4:06 PM
    • 73,709 Posts
    • 85,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Highview beaten on 'no GPEOL' (and threw their toys out of the pram!):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4877508


    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
  • kirkbyinfurnesslad
    Highview beaten on 'no GPEOL' (and threw their toys out of the pram!):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4877508


    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I love the way they do this, not much spurring going on though
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 24th Jan 14, 9:51 PM
    • 9,028 Posts
    • 13,969 Thanks
    trisontana
    Another GPEOL loss for PE at Membury Services :-

    "Hi all, Just got my appeal decision back and I'm happy to tell you that The appeal was upheld because P.E. could not prove that there was genuine pure estimate of loss. Just want to say a huge thank you to everyone for your help, especially School run mum. Thanks a lot"


    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83766&st=40&start=40

    On the subject of "loss", I like this quote from Parking Prankster:-

    It is impossible to run a business solely on monies from breach of contract, because this can only put you back in the position you were. it cannot be used to generate a profit and run a business.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
    • ezerscrooge
    • By ezerscrooge 25th Jan 14, 4:58 PM
    • 472 Posts
    • 730 Thanks
    ezerscrooge
    And a win against UKPC - on No Genuine Pre-Etsimate of Loss
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

3,409Posts Today

9,095Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • This is why I wrote the guide to financial abuse. It's tough to know when it's happening to you. It's also worth? https://t.co/XGI2sI7hOU

  • RT @David_Challen: Really happy @MartinSLewis is raising awareness of economic/financial abuse. My mother cleaned her cousins home for poc?

  • Has anyone successfully reclaimed PPI on behalf of a deceased relative. I'm doing a blog on how to do it, and I'd? https://t.co/PHXJXCzvc6

  • Follow Martin