Another Parking eye one

Dumbledore13

Didn't know how to make it into a pdf file and in my rush I didn't have time to read through the forum.

However my appeal was confirmed as received by popla so now I just have to wait and see what happens.

Dumbledore13

Success!

After a few months and help from you guys, my Parking Eye experience is now over! Thanks to everyone for their help, I have directed all friends who have come across these scams to this forum for guidance. I'll post my the verdict sent to me, hopefully it will help others who have a similar situation to mine and can read what worked in my appeal.

Thanks again!




(Appellant) -v- ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN 0845 207 7700 enquiries@popla.org.uk https://www.popla.org.uk
Reference ********** always quote in any communication with POPLA

The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******/****** arising out of the presence at Prospect Place car park, on 3 July 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark **** ***.
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
At 12:28 on 3 July 2013, a vehicle with registration mark **** *** was recorded on Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) entering the Prospect Place car park. At 15:09 on 3 July 2013, the same vehicle was recorded on CCTV exiting the Prospect Place car park. This car park offers a two hour free stay, after which parking tariffs apply.

It is the operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, because the terms and conditions for parking in the Prospect Place car park are clearly displayed on signs at the entrance to the car park and throughout the car park. A copy of the terms and conditions has been produced. The signs list daytime parking tariffs as ‘Monday – Saturday 8:00am – 6:00pm: Up to 2 hours Free Parking; Up to 3 hours £3.00’. The signs also state that a failure to comply with the car park terms and conditions will result in the issue of a £85 parking charge notice. The operator submits that, as the appellant’s vehicle remained parked in the Prospect Place car park for longer than two hours and no parking tariff was purchased, a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The appellant has raised a number of issues in his appeal. In particular, the appellant submits that the operator has not provided sufficient evidence which demonstrates that the parking charge relates directly to the loss it incurred as a result of the alleged parking contravention.

The signage produced by the operator states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the Prospect Place car park terms and conditions. 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 operator has submitted that its charges are in line with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA code states that operators must justify in advance any parking charge over £100. However, it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is, therefore, justified. Where the issue is raised by the appellant, it is for the operator to address it.

The operator has submitted that its charges have been held to be enforceable in previous cases. However, the operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge. The losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre- estimate of the loss caused in every car park.

The operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss. The operator states:
These costs include (but are not limited to): erection and maintenance of the site signage; installation, monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems; employment of office biased administrative staff; membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO; general costs including stationary and postage etc.

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 the £3.00 parking tariff once the maximum two hour free parking period had expired. A substantial number of the costs listed by the operator appear to be general business costs, and not losses incurred, or losses that might reasonably be incurred, by the appellant’s breach. A genuine pre-estimate of loss should represent a loss and not a profit. It cannot include the operator’s business overheads.

The operator has submitted that the parking charge is enforceable as there is a strong commercial justification for the charge. It would appear that the courts have accepted commercial justification for a parking charge where the operator has substantiated the loss incurred, or the loss that might reasonably be incurred, by the breach. However, the operator cannot submit that costs which, in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services, are commercially justifiable.

The onus is on the operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the operator has not produced sufficient evidence to prove that this parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal. I need not consider any other issues.

victor2

Nice to see such good feedback in response to the solid advice given by those in the know on here.

trisontana

These are the killer phrases:-

A substantial number of the costs listed by the operator appear to be general business costs, and not losses incurred, or losses that might reasonably be incurred, by the appellant’s breach. A genuine pre-estimate of loss should represent a loss and not a profit. It cannot include the operator’s business overheads.

However, the operator cannot submit that costs which, in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services, are commercially justifiable.

But still Parking Eye churn out the same rubbish where they don't seem to know the difference between costs and losses. It doesn't help that the idiots at the BPA Ltd. don't know that difference either.

Tinkerbell60

Do you have a copy of the appeal letter you sent them? Would you be so kind as to place it on here?