Parking eye replied to my appeal

Stroma

Well done , and thanks for the update

prosnap

Congratulations ...

fil_cad

Great news, its such a shame POPLA didnt refer PE to the police for trying to thieve your money, its equivalent to mugging what they do :mad:

Big_Bad_Dad

Well if POPLA are accepting NGPEOL, I see no reason the courts should swallow the "running costs" argument - the problem is that the occasional judge has done just that.

Well done Italianboy. You are now qualified to give first-hand advice to other troubled motorists and keepers here!

Stroma

The courts are always a lottery, I wouldn't say its a forgone conclusion even with the strongest defence.

Italianboy

Dear MSE users out there, I am going to type what POPLA wrote on the letter that I've finally received in December.
"On the *******2013 at Morrison's ******, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator's case that the appellant's vehicle overstayed the maximum stay of 2 hours at the parking site.
There is evidence to support tat there was adequate signage erected at the site to inform motorists of the parking terms and conditions.
There is also evidence from the operator's automatic number plate recognition system which shows the appellant's vehicle, reg ***** enter the site at ****and exit at ***** a total stay of ****.
The appellant has made a number of submissions, however I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The signage produced by the operator states that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £85 being issued. This wording indicates that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although the operator has produced a breakdown of costs incurred in managing the parking site, this is a general list of operation costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the appellant's breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
The operator has stated that theer is a commercial justification for the parking charge and they have listed general business costs, however this cost does not amount to commercial justification.
The operator states that they have incurred the cost of, amongst other things, the erection and maintenance of signage in the site. However these costs were not incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would have been incurred regardless of whether the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the parking site. I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has proved that the amount of the parking charges is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

*************
Assessor"

I am so happy to have won, and it is all down to MSE, so thank you again !