Excel Parking Notice

Ric02k13

OK so i finally got an Email from Excell with an attachment with all the 'evidence' from their side.
They have forwarded me on a redacted contract and all other signage photos ect.. They have also included a case summery where all my points in my POPLA appeal have been 'challenged'.
Is this a normal step to the process?
Thanks

Redx

yes

have a quick look through it and if you can see anything that can help your case email popla with this as an additional defence

you will probably notice that under 60 minutes (or 59 minutes) is deemed free (on the contract)

if you didnt put this in the popla appeal, send the email stating it now, to popla

otherwise sit back and wait for the verdict

Ric02k13

Well most of the contract is blanked out including the name of the employer where the office is registered at and all signage of any sort. Most of the terms and regulations are also blanked out. Noticed on another thread that this was the main success of the appeal. Can i email POPLA with this?
Yup on the contract it states that 0-1 hour is free.....
Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes you can email POPLA, now you've seen the PPC's drivel and want to have a final word to ensure you win (which you will)!

Ric02k13

Hi everyone, got my decision from POPLA today. My appeal was successful Just want to say a big thank you to everyone who helped me out with this. Was stressful at times just glad its done with now.
Have learnt to be extra careful when parking on privately owned car parks. Here is my POPLA reasons for the allowed appeal.
Thanks all again!!

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
giving the reason as: ‘Parked without displaying a valid ticket/ permit’. 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 terms of parking were clearly
displayed.

It is the Appellant’s case that:

a) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the
loss caused by the alleged breach.

b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue parking charge
notices in relation tot his land. The Appellant submits that the redacted
contract provided by the Operator shows that it is required to grant
one hour free use of the car park without a ticket by the landowner;
however, the Operator only allows half of one hour.

c) The Operator has not demonstrated that its Automatic Number Plate
Recognition technology complies with the British Parking Association
Code of Practice.

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 does not dispute 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.

In this case the Operator has produced a break-down of how it submits it
arrives at its pre-estimate of loss. A number of the heads include general
operational costs, and costs which do not relate to the breach in question.
Further, some of the costs could not yet have been incurred, and could lead
to double-recovery.










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.

I need not decide any other issues.

Coupon-mad

Well done - we knew you'd win. Have you posted this in the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky thread?