Parking Eye PCN

Coupon-mad

especially as you didn't see the signs when you entered the car park

''especially as the driver did not see the signs when they entered the car park''!

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

''especially as the driver did not see the signs when they entered the car park''!

Thanks C-m, my typing speed ahead of my brain function! :rotfl:

To avoid any future misreading, it now reads as 'the driver' - I've amended my original text.

softmachine

Many thanks to both of you! Shall edit these points into my draft.

softmachine

My POPLA appeal is in now and POPLA have acknowledged its receipt. Fingers crossed and many thanks to all who have provided me with valuable advice. It's much appreciated and I'll keep the forum posted of any developments.

4consumerrights

Softmachine - Just read your POPLA appeal and the opening line states that you are not liable for UKPC charge and then goes on to Parking Eye - It is clear that you just copied CM's other appeal. UKPC and Parking Eye are different PPC's
Resubmit your appeal - and correct this mistake - should be OK as POPLA's hearings are running over two months late.

softmachine

Just got the appeal decision by e-mail fron POPLA and my appeal was upheld! :beer:

Many, many thanks to all the forum experts who spent their valuable time providing guidance and suggestions.

I have copied the POPLA's decision below in full. In short, it came down to the fact that Parking Eye cannot justify the PCN as a genuine pre-estimate of loss, despite providing a door-stop wodge of evidence to the contrary! That single point in my 2-page appeal overturned the whole thing, just as the forum experts predicted. Many thanks again to all!



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 [FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][/FONT]
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 appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

The appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a loss resulting from a breach.

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 breach 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:
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]Erection and maintenance of the signage
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]Installation
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]Monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]Employment of office based administrative staff
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings][FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]

[/FONT]
[/FONT]Membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, 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.

Coupon-mad

Well done!