Parking Charge Notice - VCS

mib150

Stroma wrote: »

Wow £50 for you, what a nice little Christmas present for yourself Well done indeed!

And sweeter knowing the parking company had to shell out £27 for POPLA code and have now had to cancel the 'ticket' :rotfl:

Stroma

mib150 wrote: »

And sweeter knowing the parking company had to shell out £27 for POPLA code and have now had to cancel the 'ticket' :rotfl:

Icing on the cake pmsl

mib150

Just drove past Wickes and noticed a small sign at the entrance. I think it said something about customers only. I didn't have time to stop and read fully, but I'm going to go back and check it out.
Will let you know.

mib150

Looks like the store is trying to do it's part to try warn people. Shame it's only A4 size.

mib150

Email Reply from POPLA today as follows:

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN 0845 207 7700 enquiries@popla.org.uk https://www.popla.org.uk

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded

26 November 2013
Reference: 90********
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Dear Sir or Madam
Mrs ****** (Appellant)
-v-
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number VC******, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark ******.
Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.
You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Reeve
Service Manager

Shame it wasn't a victory as a result of the appeal submitted via the help of the excellent members on here, but I suppose a win is a win.

mib150

Well POPLA made their decision too!


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On ***** 2013, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark ****** on the date of the parking event for walking off site whilst the vehicle remained parked on the premises.
The operators’s case is that the parking restrictions are clearly displayed on numerous signs situated throughout the site.Copies of the signage and PCN have been produced. The signage says: “Customer Parking Only Whilst on Premises, Maximum Stay 2 Hours.” The operator says that their patrol officer observed the appellant’s vehicle parked in an area restricted to customers of Wickes only while they are on the premises and the driver left the site. They say that their employee stated on the reverse of the parking charge notice: “The driver walked off site, 30 minutes given, all signs clear and visible” and he signed the parking charge notice as a true and accurate statement of fact.
The appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge notice is punitive, unfair, unreasonable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected the appellant’s representations because they state that by leaving site whilst the vehicle remained parked, the appellant has breached the terms and conditions of the parking contract. They state that the amount of the parking charge is a reasonable claim for reasonable damages. They say that they have calculated the parking charge as a genuine pre- estimate of their losses as they incur significant costs in managing the car park. They state that some of these costs include but are not restricted to the following: employment of parking attendants to patrol the parking location, ad- hoc mobile patrols of the parking location, erection and maintenance of the site signage, parking payment and enforcement equipment to include the pay and display machines, membership and other fees including those paid to BPA,DVLA and ICO, general costs including stationery and postage, employment of office-based administrative staff and contribution to Head Office overheads. They claim that the charge amount and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner and/or agent of the site. They state that the sum is within the recommendations set out within Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.
They say that they believe that their parking charges are fair and reasonable and are in line with the British Parking Association Guidelines and they have been tested in the Court of Appeal. They state that they do not issue or collect excess charges which are only relevant to on-street or civil enforcement area and such legislation are not enforceable on private land. The operator says that the charge of £75 was found to be reasonable in the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield.
The operator does respond to the appellant’s submission that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. However, their submissions do not sufficiently address such issue.
Having considered all the evidence before me, I must find that on this particular occasion, the operator has insufficiently dealt with the issue of genuine pre estimate of loss raised by the appellant. As the appellant raised this point, the burden of proof has shifted to the operator to prove that they do. On balance of probabilities, I find that the operator has not discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor


:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer: