VCS Parking Charge Notice - Listerhills, Bradford

Katybelle_D

Its gone, lets just see what happens now :-/

Thanks everyone :T

MEM62

BPA complaint lodged!


I'll let you know the outcome of that and my POPLA appeal when I hear from the respective organisations.


Edit: Oops, wrong thread - sorry :-(

Katybelle_D

Update:

I am pleased to let you know that we won at POPLA!!! Absolutely over the moon. Thank you to everyone who has assisted and supported and advised. In particular Coupon mad, Stroma and Umkomaas. You all do a wonderful job on here and it is all done from the goodness of your heart and concern of others. Thank you :-)

Copy of letter received from POPLA:

(Appellant)

-v-

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxx arising

out of the presence at Listerhills Science Park car park, on xxx, of a vehicle with registration mark xxx.

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


It is the Operator’s case that the parking charge notice was issued for parking



in a restricted area. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in

accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

The Appellant makes a few submissions but I will only be deciding this appeal on the following; the Appellant has submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss, and so is not enforceable.

The signage produced 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 onus is on the Operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities.

Accordingly, as the Appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the onus is on the Operator to produce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its favour. The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss; however, I am not minded to fully accept this justification.

The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach, in this case, the Appellant’s failure to purchase a valid ticket. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, this sum includes a large proportion under the undiscounted stage which has not been a loss to the Operator yet/ and may not be. I do not accept that the parking charge substantially amounts to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.


Marina Kapour



Assessor

Stroma

Well done to you