Parking eye fistral beach

lcbandituk

well here's an update, woohoo we won!!!

thanks to all that helped me out, couldn't have done it without you

thank you again

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]‘By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time, or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking Charge is now payable’[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
The Appellant does not dispute that the driver of the vehicle did not pay for parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) There was insufficient signage to indicate the terms of parking, and so no contract was formed between the parties.
　
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land.
　
c) The parking charge is unfair according to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.
　
d) There was insufficient evidence provided to demonstrate that the contravention occurred.
　
e) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimation of the Operator’s loss.
The Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable. The Operator has not addressed this submission.
The signage produced states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a "[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]failure to comply[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]" with the terms of parking. This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, once an Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour. The Operator has [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]6061723057 3 30 September 2013
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to accept this justification.
The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant’s failure to pay for parking. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, many these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach.
Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
[/FONT][/FONT]

trisontana

Well done!. Could you please do us a small favour and re-post the above in the "POPLA appeals" thread. Thanks

lcbandituk

trisontana wrote: »

Well done!. Could you please do us a small favour and re-post the above in the "POPLA appeals" thread. Thanks

will do:beer:

lcbandituk

trisontana wrote: »

Well done!. Could you please do us a small favour and re-post the above in the "POPLA appeals" thread. Thanks

may be being a bit thick here but there are a few popla appealse thread, which one should I post in?

trisontana

Sorry!, I meant "POPLA Decisions" thread:-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

lcbandituk

will do it now thanks for the link

EHBA

That is a fantastic result at one of PE's 'cash cow' sites