Out of the loop for a couple of years; can I run this by everyone?

Follow up:
Success at POPLA stage: "Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."

Appeal was the following, submitted as a PDF upload via the standard POPLA web interface:

I appeal against the parking charge on the following grounds:

(1) The operator alleges that the driver did not enter the vehicle registration correctly into the in store terminal, but the driver made sole and legitimate usage of the landowner's facilities.

The driver on this occasion does not recall whether the operator's allegation is true, however the operator has not provided evidence to substantiate that it is the case.

The driver had parked in the car park for the purpose of making use of the landowner's facilities; namely shopping at Aldi. No aggravating factor existed for them to wilfully break a contract. If they did not, as alleged, enter their registration into an in store terminal as required by signage; then logically that signage must not have been adequate or clear. No contract could therefore have been formed.

(2) The operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge under this circumstance, as defined by Beavis Vs Parking Eye Ltd.

Clearly the amount requested is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and cannot be claimed on those grounds. I understand that the outcome from the Beavis Vs Parking Eye Ltd case determined that charges may be enforceable provided they are not "extravagant and unconscionable", and that there is a legitimate interest in enforcing the charge.

The clear purpose of charging users of the facility for breach of contract is to prevent abuse of the facility, and thus a loss of earnings for the landowner by means of diminished patronage of the Aldi store. I identify three forms in which this can manifest:
(i) Overstaying beyond the permitted free allowance.
(ii) Using the facility other than for its intended purpose of expediting patronage of the Aldi store.
(iii) Misusing the facility in such a way that may prevent proper use of the facility; such as parking obstructively.

In the case of Beavis Vs Parking Eye, the driver had overstayed the free parking time despite the signage; and therefore, possibly wilfully, abused the facility to the potential detriment of the landowner since the parking space he overstayed in may have been unavailable to other customers.

Such circumstances are not applicable in this case. There is simply no logical way that failing to enter a vehicle registration into a terminal, if this was the case as alleged, could possibly result in a loss of earnings to the landowner. There is therefore no legitimate interest in enforcing the charge, and the outcome of Beavis Vs Parking Eye is not relevant.

The operator has been reasonably advised of this via their own appeals process and should have cancelled the charge; so any further costs of unreasonably pursuing the case by themselves do not constitute liquidated business losses as a result of the driver's refusal to pay the charge, as they are self-inflicted by the operator.