Parking ticket adam street car park cardiff

brynglas

cheers for this, im completely lost by all this information but it is greatly appreciated. Can you check this for me to see if this is now acceptable to send as it seems alot of legal information which is way over my head .

Thank you for acknowledging the appeal for the above verification code, I would however like to add the following to my appeal:

With regards the request for payment of £100 for breach code 01 - parking without displaying a valid payment. The amount claimed by Vinci is liquidated damages and, as such, the Operator may only charge a genuine pre-estimate of loss that a rise from the alleged contravention.

The Operator has included a basket of costs, including the cost of erecting site signage and the cost of membership of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, wages and uniforms which are Operational costs of running the business.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. However, some of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same.

Also, Contract with the Landowner is not compliant with the BPA Code of practise and no status to Offer Parking or enforce tickets.

Vinci do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents, Vinci has not provided me with any evidence that is it lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings
In VCS v HMRC 2012), UKPC has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require Vinci to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (not just a signed slip of paper from someone) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable Vinci to pursue parking charge in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I contend, therefore, that you should allow the appeal on this ground.

I would be obliged if you could kindly acknowledge receipt of this further appeal information.

Coupon-mad

That's great, and send a copy in the post as well, to Vinci direct (and make it clear in the copy that goes to POPLA, that you have done so in the interests of open communication and fairness over the appeal, which was initially sent to POPLA in haste without the full facts you had wanted to include).

You have a typo in that you've put 'practise' which is the verb.

brynglas

Will do now thanks everyone for all your help, will let you know the eventual outcome xx

brynglas

Just had our appeal notice via e-mail and want to say a BIG THANK YOU - we won because of all your help folks. here is a piece of he reply :_

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.
TReasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued,
giving the reason as: ‘Parked without displaying valid payment’. The Operator
submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly
displayed terms of parking.
The Appellant does not dispute that the terms of parking were clearly
displayed.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) He purchased a valid ticket which may have blown over so that it was
no longer displayed.
b) The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of the loss caused by
the alleged breach.
c) The Operator does not have a contract permitting it to enter into
parking contracts in relation to this land.
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
Operator has not addressed this submission.
The Operator does not dispute 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, once an 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 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 display his ticket. The Operator has produced a list of costs;
however, a large proportion of the ‘losses’ submitted are not, in fact, losses
consequential to the Appellant’s breach, but general operational costs.he Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith
Consequently, I am not minded to find that this charge represents a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Umkomaas

Well done brynglas, glad this has gone your way, and thank you for your feedback.

Feedback, positive (or negative), is important to us in terms of continued motivation to help others 'in trouble' and also to make sure we are keeping abreast with PPC strategies and current POPLA thinking.

Thanks and well done again :T