Ticket from CPM

bod1467

lesnmandy

hello from Japan, got this email. . . . . . . .crud.

Ashley Gulliver (Appellant)

-v-

UK Car Park Management Limited (Operator)



The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined that the appeal be refused.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the £100 parking charge should be made within 14 days.

Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the operator.

9663053967 2 08 January 2014

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

On 14 September 2014 at Chestnut Court, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.

It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit despite signage at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so. There is photographic evidence to support that there was signage at the site to inform motorists of parking terms and conditions. There is also photographic evidence to support that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit.

It is the appellant’s case that signage at the site was inadequate, that the operator does not have the authority to issue the parking charge notice and that the parking charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

In consideration of the evidence before me, I find that the appellant’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit and therefore in breach of the parking terms and conditions. There is clear evidence which shows that there was clear and adequate signage at the parking site informing motorists of the parking terms and conditions. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they comply with all terms and conditions of parking.

In response to the appellant’s submission that the operator does not have the authority to issue the parking charge notice, the operator has provided a copy of a contract to support that they hold a contractual agreement with the landowner which gives the operator the authority to issue the parking charge notice. Therefore I find that the operator does have authority to issue the parking charge notice.

In reviewing evidence relating to the signage erected at the site I find that the signage states that motorists are “contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge fee” and that “unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice”. I find that this indicates consideration and not damages. Therefore the operator does not need to establish a genuine pre estimate of loss.

Accordingly the appeal is refused.

Farah (A-HOLE) Ahmad Assessor

Redx

please edit your last post to remove personal info, like name , docket number , registration number etc

sorry to hear that it failed on the main points we advise members on

bod1467

A breach of terms of contract mean that the claimant can ONLY claim losses flowing from the breach, or a genuine pre-estimate of such losses. The assessor has got this WRONG surely and the appeal should have been allowed?

lesnmandy

More information before I pay the thieving !!!!!!s.

lesnmandy

Working in Japan the ¥15000 would be much appreciated going towards things I need rather than a bandit parking company.

nigelbb

The Notice To Keeper claimed damages for a breach of contract but interpreted the signs as an agreed charge. The link to a picture of the signs no longer works so we have no way of knowing whether that interpretation is correct or not.

The Assessor does quote from the signage "unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a parking charge notice” which neither indicates a contract (cannot contract to do something that is unauthorised) nor an agreed charge (cannot have an agreed charge for something that is unauthorised) but implies damages for trespass.

bod1467

Exactly ... so the assessor got it wrong.

OP - your first course of action should probably be to get this referred to the Lead Assessor. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with info on who and how.

But most of all - YOU STILL DON'T HAVE TO PAY THIS! POPLA appeals are binding ONLY on the PPC, and NOT the motorist. The PPC would still have to pursue you through small claims to make you pay.

The_Deep

But this is not a parking charge, the driver did not park anywhere, he stopped, perhaps to let off a passenger, perhaps because he was stung by a bee, perhaps he run out of petrol, but he did not park, so why did he not appeal on that basis?

In any event, why are Popla dealing with it, my inderstanding is that the acronym stands for Parking on Private Land.

Redx

The_Deep wrote: »

But this is not a parking charge, the driver did not park anywhere, he stopped, perhaps to let off a passenger, perhaps because he was stung by a bee, perhaps he run out of petrol, but he did not park, so why did he not appeal on that basis?

In any event, why are Popla dealing with it, my inderstanding is that the acronym stands for Parking on Private Land.

a lot of questions there, and in the wrong thread , you are basing your opinion on the popla assessor outcome instead of the actual thread where all this was debated previously

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4788284

popla went for the easy option (obviously)

as this quote suggests

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.

this thread is about successful outcomes etc and not for your comments (or mine either)

the main forum is where these issues should be debated, or even in the actual OP thread that I linked to

its been debated to death on here and at pepipoo but trying to get these dumbos at VCS to understand it is proving tiresome, hence some of pranksters blogs about these airports

by all means debate this in the actual thread concerned

regards