Parking Ticket Appeals successes and failures

Umkomaas

Well done MLD290.

Not sure whether this is the best thread to post this on, so I'm going to copy it to the POPLA Decisions Sticky. Would you please confirm who the PPC is and also who was the POPLA Assessor?

Thanks.

MLD290

ParkingEye

Sheryar Majid

Umkomaas

MLD290 wrote: »

ParkingEye

Sheryar Majid

Thanks for confirmation, great win. PE are being spanked at every turn at POPLA with forum-influenced appeals.

trisontana

But still the BPA contend that those day-to-day running costs can be counted as "losses". This from one member of the BPA team :-

Parking Eye would have calculated the sum as a genuine pre-estimate of their losses as they incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified, including but not restricted to the following examples:

· Employment of parking attendants to patrol the parking location to include supervisory staff and vehicles, training, uniforms, etc.
· Ad-hoc mobile patrols of the parking location
· Supply & installation ANPR equipment, monitoring and maintenance
· Erection and maintenance of the site signage
· Parking payment and enforcement equipment to include the pay & display machines, hand held devices, cameras, etc.
· Membership and other fees requiring payment in order to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA, DVLA and ICO
· General costs including stationery, postage etc
· Employment of office based administrative staff along with systems and software
· Contribution to Head Office overheads

And this from Steve Clark:-


We contend that the genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by the parking operators should include those costs incurred in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified

Methinks another letter is now due to the BPA pointing out that various adjudicators at POPLA do not agree with that point of view.

Umkomaas

And didn't Steve Clark preface his response by saying that he knew more about the legal technicalities of 'pre-estimate of losses' than most others? - IIRC :rotfl:

Computersaysno

What do we think a genuine pre-estimate is then??

DVLA - £2.50
Printing - 50p
postage - £1

er.....that's it?

trisontana

Computersaysno wrote: »

What do we think a genuine pre-estimate is then??

DVLA - £2.50
Printing - 50p
postage - £1

er.....that's it?

And that's one big lie that the whole private parking "industry" is based on. If they only claimed the above they would all be out of business in an instant.

nigelbb

trisontana wrote: »

And that's one big lie that the whole private parking "industry" is based on. If they only claimed the above they would all be out of business in an instant.

The one big lie that the whole private parking "industry" is based on is that when visiting a retail store that the motorist by parking formed a contract with a 3rd-party who does not own or lease the car park. Parking is a customer service offered by the retailer to lure you into their store just like providing toilets & you don't enter into a contract to pee when you use the loo in a store.

peter_the_piper

You would if Peeing Eye got a look in. Automatic Fly Recognision cameras on the stalls, just don't have Dehli Belly or you will get a crap fine.

Guys_Dad

trisontana wrote: »

But still the BPA contend that those day-to-day running costs can be counted as "losses". This from one member of the BPA team :-

Parking Eye would have calculated the sum as a genuine pre-estimate of their losses as they incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified, including but not restricted to the following examples:

· Employment of parking attendants to patrol the parking location to include supervisory staff and vehicles, training, uniforms, etc.
· Ad-hoc mobile patrols of the parking location
· Supply & installation ANPR equipment, monitoring and maintenance
· Erection and maintenance of the site signage
· Parking payment and enforcement equipment to include the pay & display machines, hand held devices, cameras, etc.
· Membership and other fees requiring payment in order to manage the business effectively including those paid to BPA, DVLA and ICO
· General costs including stationery, postage etc
· Employment of office based administrative staff along with systems and software
· Contribution to Head Office overheads

Is it anyone but Parking Eye's fault if their business model charge does not cover their operating costs? For heaven's sake, the logical conclusion is that if all of their excess charges only go towards covering their costs, they wouldn't make a profit would they?

And that's the next silver bullet if they start getting results on the pre-estimate point !