PCN for failing to display season ticket in station car park.

surlyc

Another win for GPEoL.

Many thanks to Coupon-mad and everyone else whose work here helped me draft my reply.

I'll post the response from POPLA later when I have time.

Coupon-mad

Nice - well done! Please do post the full decision wording which we like to see, for consistency.

surlyc

Full response:

(Appellant)

-v-

Meteor Parking Limited (c/o Vinci Park) (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number arising out of the presence at X, on November 5 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XX.

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

At 13:28, on November 5 2013, a parking operative observed the Appellant’s vehicle parked at the X car park.

The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking conditions by failing to display a valid ticket or voucher.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. The Appellant raised a number of points and one of them was the Operator must provide support for the charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

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 losses suffered by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the car park, and the nature of the breach. That a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park, does not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of the loss caused in every car park.

The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a substantial proportion of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach. The aim of damages for breach of contract is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Accordingly, the Operator cannot include in its pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses, but the costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective of the Appellant’s conduct.

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 in order to tip the balance in its favour.

Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I need not decide any other issues.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Computersaysno

We need to get POPLA decisions on some of the 'single point [other than GPEOL] appeals that are in the pipeline.


Anyone got any of these on the go [I think PPRankster has]??


Any idea when they are due for a decision??