POPLA Decisions

PPC is TPS.

A different assessor for authority of land owner this time. Seems to be growing in popularity.

Here is my response regarding the private parking charge.
XXXXXXXXX (Appellant) -v- Highview Parking Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 568140421010 arising out of the presence at Riverside Retail Park, on 21/04/2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.

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.

2 02 July 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
At 14:52 on the 21st April 2014, a grey Honda XXX with registration mark XXXXXXX was recorded exiting the Riverside Retail Park after a stay of 2 hours and 44 minutes. The car park is a 2.5 hour maximum stay car park and a parking charge notice was issued for parking in excess of the maximum stay period.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions on site state that the car park is a 2.5 hour maximum stay car park. There is signage displayed at the site which sets out the terms and conditions and therefore as the vehicle was parked in excess of the maximum stay, the motorist was parked in contravention of the terms and conditions.
The Appellant’s case is that:
a) The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
b) The Operator has failed to show that they have the authority to levy charges.
c) The signage at the site is insufficient.
d) The charge amounts to an unlawful penalty charge.
e) The Operator has failed to show that the ANPR equipment used is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the Appellant has stated that the Operator has failed to provide evidence of a contract in place with the landowner. The onus is then on the Operator to show that they have the authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in breach of the terms and conditions. In this case, the Operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract in place or a signed witness statement which grants them the authority to enforce restrictions at the site. I consequently have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the Operator does not have the authority to issue parking charge notices to vehicles parked in contravention of the terms and conditions. As a result, I need not decide any other issues raised by the Appellant.

3 02 July 2014
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Shehla Pirwany
Assessor

Won against Ethical Parking Management

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4870399

Assessor: Amber Ahmed

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination:

The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxx arising out of the presence at xxxxxxx College – on [date] plus [car reg].

The operator recorded that the vehicle was displaying an expired ticket or permit. This is the last of the two appeals I am considering together.

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 image of the signage produced as evidence by the operator worryingly refers to the charge as a “penalty”. However, this is a library image and I am unable to determine when this was taken. The signage also states that “failure to display a valid permit and proof of payment” will result in a parking charge being issued. This wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

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.