Excel at the Peel Centre again!

stargazer7

Fantastic stuff Coupon-Mad! The revised layout makes more sense as do the additional comments - knew it wasn't quite right as it was. Thanks very much for your help. I am going to get the appeal submitted over the next few days, will post back with the outcome.

Reading the BPA Code of Practice is a real eye-opener, the GPEOL requirement is spelled out pretty clearly. Am surprised in a way that it isn't more common knowledge. This forum is doing a great job in dispelling the myth that they these companies have a right to impose this ridiculously over-inflated charges.

By the way, both Nando's and Peel themselves were unsympathetic. They both gave me the same story - basically that there were signs up clearly stating the charge and genuine customer or not, they were not going to intervene. I did ask about whether Peel had got involved before and was told about the case where the machines were covered with bags (which is detailed elsewhere on this forum), but she said that they wouldn't normally instruct Excel to drop a parking charge.

Disappointing but not really surprising. I'd suggest it was a waste of time complaining to them, but in another way the more negative comments they receive about this bunch of shysters trying to bully money out of their customers the better. Maybe I should have gone higher up with my complaint but decided to just go to POPLA to save time.

Redx

the only reason I dont think its a waste of time complaining to both Peel and any shops , is because if it ever went to court a judge will always look favourably on anything you have done to minimise the alleged debt or to try to get it sorted out with everybody in question

in other words its good evidence if you ever needed it , looks good on you, bad on them

I am sure it probably helped martin cutts , although his was mainly about signage, which is still questionable on there, especially if going to KFC

another point about the signage, if it was so good , why are there so many threads on here and pepipoo about people who havent seen it and so havent paid ?

as was said in the welcome break thread, if the shops have signs warning customers HAVE YOU PAID etc then it might stop people parking without payment

not only that, Excel are now issuing a PCN even if the ticket machines are covered up !

in some cases 2 pcn,s for the same non-payment !!

stargazer7

Appeal sent via the POPLA website and by email. But for some reason, I have been sent a confirmation email from London Councils!

Wondering if they have they given me the wrong POPLA code (either through incompetence or in an attempt to throw a spanner in the works). If so, it's totally their mistake as I am sure I have entered the code correctly. Anyone else had this experience?

Redx

the london councils administer popla

http://www.popla.org.uk/privacy.htm

so are you saying you have put in a popla appeal online and received a confirmation from them ?

stargazer7

Yes, got the confirmation from London Councils after the website submission but I also sent the appeal by email to POPLA as a back up.

Thanks for the link, didn't notice that. I'm maybe being a bit paranoid after reading all the stories here about Excel and their tactics!

Ball's rolling then. Will post back when I have the verdict!

Frugle_Expert

[FONT=&quot]Posted new thread thank you - I've removed content so no one is forced to read all before finding it was an error [/FONT]

Guys_Dad

Frugle, in order not to get replies to your case mixed up with tghis ongoing thread, can you start one of your own (big blue button on top of main parking forum page) and we will help you.

ColliesCarer

Hi Frugle,

Please open your own thread on the forum for the above post - helps keep individual issues separate. Forum members will be able to advise you from there.

EDIT - Apols GUYS-Dad - was drafting and didin't see you had already responded

stargazer7

Well I got back from holiday today to find that I have won the appeal! Thanks once again to everyone who helped with this, especially Coupon Mad for knocking my draft appeal into shape.

Excel did produce a fairly hefty evidence pack which included a breakdown of costs they claim to have been incurred by this heinous crime, but as can be seen from the assessor's decision, they were not accepted as costs resulting from the breach. They also included a "witness statement" purporting to prove they had authority to pursue parking charges on behalf of the landowner - despite the fact that I had stated I would not accept such a document as proof. Anyway, they have obviously put some effort into trying to win the appeal (probably a result of the number of defeats they are suffering?) so I sent another email to POPLA, the main thrust of which was that however they were trying to dress it up, the list of costs clearly featured overheads and operational costs which they are not allowed to include.

Thanks again all, and if anyone else in this situation needs any help, feel free to give me a shout.

(Appellant)
-v-
Excel Parking Services Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number #### arising
out of the presence at Peel Centre Car Park, Stockport, on ##/##/#### ,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
On ##/##/####, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark #### for parking in a pay and display car park without displaying a valid pay and display voucher/permit.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car park are displayed on numerous signs situated at the entrance and
throughout the car park. The signage says: “Customers have 15 minutes from entering the car park to purchase a pay and display voucher.” The Operator says that their photographic images show that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked for 65 minutes without purchasing a pay and display voucher. They have produced photographic evidence which illustrates this point and they have produced copies of the parking charge notice and their signs. 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 Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred, by parking without displaying a valid pay and display voucher. The Operator has enclosed a pre-estimate of loss statement. They advise that they have calculated a genuine pre-estimate of losses as £103.21.
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 costs and does not address the loss that was caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking.
They state that they have calculated this sum a genuine pre-estimate of loss as they incur significant costs in ensuring compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these identified. They state that some of these costs include costs of maintenance, issue of the parking charge and costs relating to elements of debt recovery. The Operator also cited some case law in support of their case. I find that 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.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

bondy_lad

brilliant,well done.