Parking Eye - POPLA Appeal advice sought!

Umkomaas

Scouse_Magic wrote: »

If parkingeye state that "Their charges are reasonable and fair, and are a genuine pre estimate of loss".....Why do they do themselves out of that supposed loss by offering 50% discount for prompt payment??....and if no one used the retail park at all in a seven day period, Parkingeye's business running cost's will be exactly the same, so that blows their argument out.......

They also claim they errect signage which is incorporated into their estimate of loss.....How many paying vehicles will it take both in the last few years and the future before they consider it paid for.....

Id love a good day out it court with this lot :beer:

The very point that has defeated them every time it has been raised in appeals to POPLA. An absolute MUST include in any appeal.

markahoy

Thanks to all on here for your help...

Can't post the text of the decision on here as only have it in a pdf, which I can't seem to copy the text from...however...I appealed on various grounds, but the only one they needed to consider was GPEOL.

If there's somewhere I can send the details to, I'd be more than happy to do so.

bod1467

If you don't mind a complete stranger seeing your unredacted document then you can email to to me at my-forum-username* at gmail dot com and I'll extract the relevant parts and post a redacted version here.

*Not literally my-forum-username, but my forum username that you see above-left

markahoy

On its way!

bod1467

XXXXX XXXXX (Appellant)
-v-
ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXX/XXXXXX arising out of the presence at Rishworth Centre Retail Park, on Date 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.

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

The operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXX/XXXXX arising out of the presence at Rishworth Centre Retail Park, on Date 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX. The operator recorded that the vehicle was at the site for 2 hours and 14 minutes.

The operator’s case is that there is clear signage at the site infor ming motorists that the site allows a maximum stay of 2 hours. The operator submits that the appellant breached the terms and conditions of the site by overstaying the maximum stay by 14 minutes.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the ground set out below.

The appellant does not dispute that they overstayed the maximum stay. It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre – estimate of loss.

The signage produced in evidence by the operator states that a parking charge notice would be issued for “failure to comply”. This wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a brreach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

The operator submits that the amount of the parking charge is legally enforceable on the following three grounds;

1. That there is a strong commercial justification for the charge.

2. That there is ample case law to suggest that the value of such a parking charge is not punitive

3. That the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator has cited case law to find that the charge is commercially justifiable and that the charge cannot be considered a penalty. The operator submits that the private management of car parks is commercially necessary for landholders. The operator further submits that landholders have a right to commercially manage their private land as they see fit to allow motorists to use the land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The operator states that this is commercially necessary as the landholder needs to manage their land in order to ensure that their business can run successfully.

I find that the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot in itself amount to commercial justification.

The operator has cited case law in order to submit that the value of the parking charge is reasonable and not punitive. I find that each case is different on its facts and it is not possible for me to allow an appeal based on these short summaries.

The operator submits that that the pre-estimate of loss will depend on the losses of themselves and the landholder. The operator submits that this will vary on the time of the day, the day of the week and even upon the weather. The operator submits that the losses incurred by them include, but are not restricted to:

 Erection and maintenance of the signage
 Installation
 Monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems
 Employment of office based administrative staff
 Membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and IC O, general costs including stationary, postage etc.

The operator has included day to day costs of running their business, which does not amount to a genuine pre–estimate of loss. I find that the above list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss or fall within commercial justification.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Amber Ahmed
Assessor