Jump to content


Interesting Statement By Lead Adjudicator on POPLA Website

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1988 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Apologies if this has been posted already but I noticed this statement and linked adjudication on POPLA




It seems that the adjudicator has been slightly annoyed by the decision of the PPC involved (redacted but almost certainly Parking Eye) and the BPA to use the transcript in a private section of the BPA website to (according to some suggestions) provide instruction to other PPCs in order to combat the 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' argument. The Adjudicator is concerned that in doing so the impartiality of POPLA may be compromised so has published the redacted transcript of the adjudication - the transcript also refers to this point.


The transcript gives not only a useful insight into how POPLA will view applications on the basis of No GPEOL, and the hurdles to be overcome on either side of an appeal on that basis, but it also makes a mockery of the carp souted on the PE website about the majority of POPLA decisions on GPEOL being awarded in favour of PE.


Whilst the adjudication may indeed give PPCs some ideas as to how to make charges fall in line with a GPEOL, there is also a degree of clarity over what cannot be included in the mind of POPLA - management and running costs of the car park cannot be for example, however staffing time (which could be shown to be expensive) and administration in chasing charge notices might well be accepted as a 'loss'. I would therefore see that point as stressing the importance of early communication and appeal to the PPC being important so that they cannot claim to have incurred the losses which might go along with an uncommunicative victim.


Of course this is all notwithstanding the fact that this is just a POPLA adjudication rather than a binding legal precedent, and ignores the various and many other reasons why a charge on private land might be unlawful, but I found it interesting nevertheless!


UPDATE - It appears that this case has already been featured on the Parking Prankster site but the above is for those who may not have already seen this

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.






If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear the "amoeba" might be honing it's skill !!!!!!!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...