Parking eye fine for entering a carpark for 14 minutes

Umkomaas

itsdayv wrote: »

Hiya,

Thanks for the tips, I did copy a previous appeal and made a lot of changes so it was relevant to the specific charge...but I accidentally copied the unedited version to here. Thank you all for your assistance, I will let you know of the outcome. How long does it usually take to get a response?

POPLA is seriously behind schedule because of the volume of appeals generated (probably as the result of forums such as this, Pepipoo, and CAG encouraging this as the default method of dealing with PCNs).

I think you should budget on around two months after submission - so November (unless POPLA take on even more assessors).

nigelbb

Umkomaas wrote: »

POPLA is seriously behind schedule because of the volume of appeals generated (probably as the result of forums such as this, Pepipoo, and CAG encouraging this as the default method of dealing with PCNs).

Someone at London Councils seriously underestimated the work involved when they put in the bid for the contract to run POPLA as they have in fact only received about half the appeals that they were expecting & have frantically been taking on more & more assessors.

itsdayv

Hi you awesome people! I just received the verdict from POPLA and our appeal was successful. Thank you so much for all your help. Here is what they had to say

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 020938/694131 arising out of the presence at Holy Trinity Church in Newquay, on 26 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.

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










Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At 08:34 on the 26 July 2013, a vehicle with registration mark ******* was recorded by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera entering the car park at Holy Trinity Church in Newquay. After 14 minutes, at 08:49, the same vehicle was recorded by the ANPR camera exiting the car park.

It is the Operator’s case that the site is a paid parking car park as clearly stated on the signage on site. As the Appellant had failed to purchase valid parking in line with the terms and conditions, a parking charge was correctly issued.

The Appellant has raised several issues in his appeal; however I will only deal with the point on which I am allowing this appeal. The Appellant has stated that there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss, i.e. that there could have been no loss to the landowner arising from the visit of less than 15 minutes.

The Operator submits that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but that in any event the charge is commercially justified.

The wording of the signage on site 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 is required to show that the losses stated are directly related to the Appellant’s failure to purchase valid parking. In this case, the Operator has stated that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as they incur ‘significant costs in managing this car park to ensure that motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions.’ The Operator has stated that the costs include the erection and maintenance of site signage, installation, monitoring
and maintenance of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems, employment of office based administrative staff, membership fees, and general costs including stationary and postage. In this case, the justification appears to be on the basis of general operating costs rather than addressing the loss actually caused as a result of not purchasing valid parking.

Although the Operator has stated that the charge is commercially justified, the amount sought for the breach of the terms and conditions cannot be the entire source of their income and must be loss based rather than based on profit in order to amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I do not accept the Operator’s submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to
the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. The whole business model of 6062333018 2 04 December 2013 an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification.

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 must allow the appeal.

Redx

well done indeed, another one in the eye for the cowboys

they just never seem to "get it" , but they will ; with their fake and unenforceable PCN,`s

The_Slithy_Tove

Seeing a lot of these now. It's no wonder POPLA are (allegedly) catching up on their backlog. Now, as soon as they see the magic words Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss, all they need to do is confirm the PPC is alleging breach of contract, copy'n'paste their standard paragraphs (as seen above and also in many other appeals) into the appeal result and job done.

Gazbaz77

Hi pretty much the same thing happened to me. So I'm writing my appeal to PE. I put "the driver" with any reference to myself right?

Redx

Gazbaz77 wrote: »

Hi pretty much the same thing happened to me. So I'm writing my appeal to PE. I put "the driver" with any reference to myself right?

everything you need to know is contained in the NEWBIES sticky thread at the top of this forum, second one down

if you need any more help, please start a new thread , thanks