POPLA Decisions

Received our decision today.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On xxxxx 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 did not purchase the appropriate parking time despite clear signage erected at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so. 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 Xxxxxxxx entered the site at 22:20 and exited at 23:36.
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. This is because the full amount of the parking charge is £100. When the amount of the parking charge is representative of damages it must be genuinely pre-estimated by the operator before a contract with the driver is formed. It is clear that the amount lost by the operator as a result of the appellant’s alleged breach is calculated at £34.90. Therefore, the operator has not shown how the £100 parking charge is justified as the loss incurred as a result of the appellant’s alleged breach. 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

Well done lynneh.

Did the GPEOL statement of the PPC only amount to £34.90 (they must be daft if that's what they put forward), or has the POPLA assessor done some calculation of what she will 'allow' and what she has 'disallowed'?

lynneh wrote: »

No, they itemised it on one of their letters!

Thanks! How stupid - doh :doh:. £34.90 GPEOL £65.10 penalty.

Game over. Great result for you

Won my appeal!

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxx arising out of the presence at SA1 (Swansea), on 29 March 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked in a restricted area of the car park.

The appellant has made a number of submissions; 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 burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could
be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. However, the operator has not
provided a breakdown of costs under each head of claim. I am unable to see how the parking charge amount has been calculated. In addition, the operator has included “Central Payments Office (CPO) – Indirect Overheads”. I do not accept that these costs have been incurred as a direct result of the appellant’s breach. As the operator has not produced a
breakdown of costs, I am unable to determine the proportion of these costs in relation to other heads of claim listed by the operator. On this occasion, 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 represents a genuine pre- estimate of loss.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.


Amber Ahmed
Assessor


Thanks everyone who helped. Justice!! x

Another win against Parking Eye. I assisted an ( ex ) Aldi customer off board and unsurprisingly PE threw in the towel - in fact they didn't even turn up for the fight !