Tower Rd Newquay Parking Eye

Coupon-mad

A few thoughts at first, you have all the points needed but it's too long (even by my standards and I can't write concisely for toffee!).

I would cross out this as none of it helps your case as you've already covered the point and don't want to tip off a PPC about what to include or not include in any breakdown of 'loss':

[STRIKE]19.6 If you’re parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable
b. If the pre-estimate of loss contains any of the following, then I contend that these are the costs of running a business and I require the PPC to confirm to POPLA whether or not the pre-estimate of loss contains some or all elements of
• Erection and maintenance of the site signage.
• Installation, monitoring and maintenance of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems.
• Employment of office-based administrative staff.
• Membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the SPA, DVLA and ICO.
• General costs including stationery, postage, etc.[/STRIKE]


And this bit would be better under the 'penalty' point #1:

Therefore, these 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are in fact unlawful attempts at penalties, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services vHetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OB Services v Thurlow (review, February2011) and in the case with the same Operator, Parking Eye v Smith(Manchester County Court December 2011). Parking Eye will not be able to refute this fact - however many pages of evidence they may send to POPLA - and so this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law.

[STRIKE] c. [/STRIKE] On the day in question the Tower road car park has a charge of £7.20 for the period 8am to 10pm. For 1 hour the charge is £1.80. Even without a reasonable grace period the vehicle being in the car park 17 minutes can in no way lead to a pre-estimate of loss of £100. [STRIKE]As Parking Eye are not the landowner and the car park is not owned by a
commercial, revenue generating establishment therefore £100 charge is not a
genuine estimate and is a penalty[/STRIKE].

pMcfly

Thanks for the advice. I'll make the amends and send it off.

pMcfly

pMcfly wrote: »

Thanks for the advice. I'll make the amends and send it off.

Finally had the 51 page PE pack.

I've drafted a additional response to their pack along the lines of:

-the cases they quote are about large corporations. not individuals
-the commercial justification case has not been made
-the witness statement from the landowner is not a contract.

Are there any updated points I need to make?

pMcfly

Umkomaas

pMcfly wrote: »

Finally had the 51 page PE pack.

I've drafted a additional response to their pack along the lines of:

-the cases they quote are about large corporations. not individuals
-the commercial justification case has not been made
-the witness statement from the landowner is not a contract.

Are there any updated points I need to make?

pMcfly

I think you've almost certainly got all bases already covered in your appeal. The first two points above, I would say are pretty moot in the overall scheme of things and will not be dealt with by POPLA - so hardly worth the effort of putting anything together on these.

On point 3, then yes this is a much more important point than either of the other two. Parking Prankster has been doing quite a bit of work on PE Witness Statements, so a read of the following link will give you some added food for thought on this.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/parkingeye-popla-witness-statements.html

pMcfly

Thanks. Interesting. I think I'll just stick with my comment that a witness statement isn't a contract.

Coupon-mad

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/i-am-collecting-parkingeye-witness.html

Please do send PP your witness statement by email for his collection. Helps the bigger picture of the fightback.

pMcfly

Hi

Just to let you all know that the decision has come through and POPLA have allowed my appeal and so Parking Eye have to cancel the charge.

It was allowed on the basis that Parking Eye had not demonstrated that it was a justified loss, not a penalty, and that the evidence they gave to support the loss was basically just the usual operating costs.

Thanks for everyone's help.

pMcfly