How to appeal parking ticket

Danny30

Is it a problem if the image looks 3 times bigger than the actual size (due to close up shot)?

Umkomaas

Danny30 wrote: »

Is it a problem if the image looks 3 times bigger than the actual size (due to close up shot)?

If it conveys the point you're trying to make, put it in. If it doesn't, leave it out.

I think it's time to bite the bullet and send this off, otherwise you're in danger of paralysis, possibly overshooting your deadline. Then you're staring down the barrel of a court case.

If POPLA's creating so much uncertainty and handwringing then court is most definitely not going to be a walk in the park for you.

Danny30

Ok, I am going to add the signage paragraph and send the letter to POPLAA then. I have 28 days from the date of the rejection letter so I still have time to send it in.

Danny30

UPDATE

Hi all, I have just received a letter from parking eye with their evidence to refute my appeal. I think that they have attempted to answer all the questions. For example they state a recent court case in their favour to argue against genuine pre-estimate loss. Is this normal or does it indicate a negative result from popla in the very near future.

Also they kept writing forum based appeal on their appeals.

Stroma

They have no answer to this, you will win at popla with the pre estimate of loss, they try and give operating costs that are tax deductible as losses, this is not the case.

nigelbb

The costs of running their business are nothing to do with your case as they are incurred whether you parked there or not. Any loss must flow directly from your car being parked there for that length of time. For example if this was a free car park the loss can only be zero. If it was a pay & display car park that cost £1/hour then the loss is at most £1.

Their claim is that you entered into a contract for parking by reading the signs & parking. They then claim that they are entitled to damages because you broke that contract in some way. However under English law any damages are only designed to put the injured party back in the same situation as if the breach had never happened and they cannot profit from the claim. Any damages must be either actual losses or as in this case they are claiming sum in liquidated damages. Instead of trying to calculate what the actual losses are after the event parties to a contract may agree on a sum as liquidated damages that will be paid in the vent of a breach but these cannot be a penalty and must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The strange PPC business model means that they only receive income if they fail in their job of providing parking 'management'. If they were successful then there would be no contraventions & hence no charges so they would go out of business.

Danny30

Thanks for the replies. So wouldn,t everyone win their appeal then with genuine pre-estimate loss argument?

Danny30

Reading through the evidence reply from PE again, all their appeals refer to court cases that have gone in their favour for the stated arguments. Are court cases an adequate defence for these appeals as that is pretty much all I can see from them? They all seem like templated responses.

Also for the genuine losses they have written along with their full 2 pages of court cases that justify their charge that a cost to them from my ticket is £53. I thought that losses to them were not relevant in this argument and that is was just the loss of income from me parking.

Umkomaas

Danny30 wrote: »

Reading through the evidence reply from PE again, all their appeals refer to court cases that have gone in their favour for the stated arguments. Are court cases an adequate defence for these appeals as that is pretty much all I can see from them? They all seem like templated responses.

Also for the genuine losses they have written along with their full 2 pages of court cases that justify their charge that a cost to them from my ticket is £53. I thought that losses to them were not relevant in this argument and that is was just the loss of income from me parking.

Ignore the details they are giving you about court cases and the like, they're designed to intimidate and force you to cough up. They certainly won't be including their latest court case in a hurry. Have a read of this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4800540

Stroma

It's no good stating court cases as they are not binding on popla, when you state that you put them to strict proof of their losses, they must provide proof of that, if they don't provide sufficient proof that's the end of the matter. And the same with their contract to operate there, if you state that they must provide proof of this and they don't then that is a winner.