POPLA appeal final draft

Coupon-mad

loulix45 wrote: »

Well folks, the evidence pack arrived today.....all 52 pages of it! Most of it is photocopies of all previous correspondence and photographs of the signage in the car park. The last page though under the heading 'other evidence' is a signed witness statement! The only point they address in the documents is GPEOL. Not long to go now, just hoping for a positive outcome!

As Guys Dad says, look here as PP is also collecting them:

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

It really helps to gather all of these spurious documents, so please send a copy to PP.

loulix45

Thank you both - I've just sent it over to him. Do you think I should add his statement re witness statements to my POPLA appeal?

Coupon-mad

No need, you should win anyway quite soon now.

loulix45

I won my appeal! YAY! :j Thanks to all you guys and gals for your help and support throughout the whole process. Below is the assessors decision.


The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The signage produced by the Operator states that a failure to comply with the terms and conditions will lead to a charge of £85 being issued. This wording indicates that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract and therefore the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The burden is on the Operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although the Operator has produced a breakdown of costs incurred in managing the parking site, this is a general list of operational costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking. The Operator has stated that there is a commercial justification for the parking charge and they have listed general business costs, however, this does not amount to commercial justification.
The Operator states that they have incurred the costs of, amongst other things, the erection and maintenance of signage in the site. However these costs were not incurred as a direct result of the alleged breach, but would have been incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached the terms and conditions of the parking site. I am therefore not satisfied that the Operator has proved that the amount for the parking charge notice is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Farah Ahmad
Assessor

esmerobbo

Nice one take pleasure in knowing you cost them money!

Coupon-mad

Well done!