Win against Highview Parking

Lou30

Just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone for your help & advise regarding my case with Highview Parking- Here is the reply from POPLA!

The Operator issued parking charge notice number
arising out of the presence at Waterfields Retail Park, on 15/09/2013, of ***
a vehicle with registration mark
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 16:56 on the 15th September 2013, a blue Renault Megane with registration
mark **** was recorded exiting the Waterfields Retail Park, Watford
after a stay of 3 hours and 29 minutes. The car park is 2 hour maximum stay
car park as stated on signage placed throughout the car park and therefore
as a result of parking in excess of the maximum permitted time, the appellant
was parked in breach of the terms and conditions.
The appellant’s case is that the charge exceeds the appropriate amount and
is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. The appellant states that the amount is
disproportionate to the loss and is therefore a penalty. It is also noted by the
appellant that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 and the operator has failed to show that they have the
authority to issue parking charge notices. In addition, the appellant states that
the operator has failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, from the wording of the
signage at the site, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages,
which is compensation, agreed in advance; this means that the breach
should represent the actual loss caused. The operator has made a reference
to the loss incurred and stated that they have calculated the sum owed as a
‘genuine pre estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location
to ensure compliance with the stated terms and conditions on site and to
follow up on any breaches.’ In this case, although the operator states that
the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss, they have failed to provide a
breakdown of the losses incurred and therefore I have no evidence to
dispute the appellant’s claim that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of
the loss incurred as a result of exceeding the maximum permitted time. As a
result of this, I need not address the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany

Coupon-mad

Well done - your success has already been added to the POPLA appeals sticky thread for posterity!

HO87

Lou30 wrote: »

Just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone for your help & advise regarding my case with Highview Parking- Here is the reply from POPLA!

The Operator issued parking charge notice number
arising out of the presence at Waterfields Retail Park, on 15/09/2013, of ***
a vehicle with registration mark
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 16:56 on the 15th September 2013, a blue Renault Megane with registration
mark **** was recorded exiting the Waterfields Retail Park, Watford
after a stay of 3 hours and 29 minutes. The car park is 2 hour maximum stay
car park as stated on signage placed throughout the car park and therefore
as a result of parking in excess of the maximum permitted time, the appellant
was parked in breach of the terms and conditions.
The appellant’s case is that the charge exceeds the appropriate amount and
is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. The appellant states that the amount is
disproportionate to the loss and is therefore a penalty. It is also noted by the
appellant that the notice to keeper is not compliant with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 and the operator has failed to show that they have the
authority to issue parking charge notices. In addition, the appellant states that
the operator has failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, from the wording of the
signage at the site, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages,
which is compensation, agreed in advance; this means that the breach
should represent the actual loss caused. The operator has made a reference
to the loss incurred and stated that they have calculated the sum owed as a
‘genuine pre estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location
to ensure compliance with the stated terms and conditions on site and to
follow up on any breaches.’ In this case, although the operator states that
the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss, they have failed to provide a
breakdown of the losses incurred and therefore I have no evidence to
dispute the appellant’s claim that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of
the loss incurred as a result of exceeding the maximum permitted time. As a
result of this, I need not address the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Shehla Pirwany

And thank you for taking the time to come back and let us know the result.