Popla

zaly

Thanks Guys Dad - details posted below.


(Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)



The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxx/xxxxxx
arising out of the presence at XXXXXX Retail Park, on 30 March,
of a vehicle with registration mark XXXX XXX.

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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) was correctly
issued because the Appellant’s vehicle was parked for longer than the
maximum stay permitted. The Operator submits that its automatic number
plate recognition system (‘ANPR’) recorded the vehicle enter the site at 13:47
and exit at 17:32, a stay of 3 hours and 45 minutes. The Operator submits that
a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms and
conditions which stated “3 Hour Max Stay”. The Operator has produced a
photograph of the terms and conditions sign at the site together with
evidence that the Operator was contracted to enforce parking restrictions on
behalf of the land owner.


It is the Appellant’s case, amongst other grounds of appeal, that the parking
charge is unenforceable because it does not represent the actual or a
genuine pre-estimate of the loss resulting from the alleged breach of the
contract. The Appellant submits that the Operator has failed to produce
evidence or a breakdown of such a loss, which the Appellant submits would
in any event not justify the £100 parking charge.


The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a PCN would
be issued for “failure to comply” with the parking conditions. This wording
indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the
parking contract. The purpose of damages is to restore the party suffering loss
to the position it would have been in were it not for the breach. Accordingly,
the charge must be for the actual loss or based upon a genuine pre-estimate
of the loss flowing from breach of the parking terms. This might be, for
example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping
centre.


The Operator submitted that the charge is based upon the cost of enforcing
parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and
employing administrative staff) and the charge was agreed by the land
owner and specified on site signage.


However, this does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the parking
contract. The loss specified by the Operator is the cost of providing parking


enforcement at the site. In other words, were no breach to have occurred
the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same.



Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s
submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.


I must allow the appeal on this ground.


Matthew Shaw

Assessor

salmosalaris

Any chance you can get this posted on pepipoo, preferably with a scanned copy of the assessment ?
This is the first I've seen where the 'costs' argument has been shot down . As this is what they're relying on in court some more rulings like this could prove useful.

Umkomaas

Well done zaly, well done Kirkbyinfurnesslad, and well done Matthew Shaw. Possibly a groundbreaking day in the fight back!

I can't see POPLA ever moving away from this position they've now taken on losses -v- costs. How can anyone lose ever again at POPLA if this, now to be standard paragraph, is included in their appeal and the PPC can produce nothing more than the basic list developed by PE and which other PPCs have used.

A warm feeling at chez Umkomaas!

zaly

salmosalaris wrote: »

Any chance you can get this posted on pepipoo, preferably with a scanned copy of the assessment ?
This is the first I've seen where the 'costs' argument has been shot down . As this is what they're relying on in court some more rulings like this could prove useful.

Ah I hadn't realised that this was any different from the usual! I can definitely post on pepipoo but I haven't been able to edit the pdf document and my scanned copies are saving as uneditable pdf's too. I'll have a play around though and try and get something up tomorrow.