We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Won my POPLA
Options
jamummy
Posts: 17 Forumite
Thanks for all those members who helped with putting together my POPLA appeal. I was successful!
Here's what the adjudicator said:
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a [make of car] with the registration mark xxxxxxx was recorded entering the said car park at [time] and exiting at [time], recording a total stay of xx minutes in a pay and display car park without paying for parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that she is not liable for the parking charge sought as the charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by her breach. The Appellant adds that the Operator have no legal capacity to issue and enforce parking charge notice’s and the signage at site is non compliant with the BPA code of conduct.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as they incur significant costs in managing this car park in order to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs which includes a comparatively large ‘write-off allowance’.
I therefore find that a substantial proportion of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. Consequently, I cannot decide that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Here's what the adjudicator said:
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a [make of car] with the registration mark xxxxxxx was recorded entering the said car park at [time] and exiting at [time], recording a total stay of xx minutes in a pay and display car park without paying for parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that she is not liable for the parking charge sought as the charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred by her breach. The Appellant adds that the Operator have no legal capacity to issue and enforce parking charge notice’s and the signage at site is non compliant with the BPA code of conduct.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as they incur significant costs in managing this car park in order to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs which includes a comparatively large ‘write-off allowance’.
I therefore find that a substantial proportion of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. Consequently, I cannot decide that the Operator has shown that the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
0
Comments
-
Which PPC please?
Well done, by the way!Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Excel peel centre.
Thanks
0 -
So in other words they are saying that the £100 requested is not the loss, I just don't understand that decision considering it costs a £1 to park for 2 hours. It must be a mistake by popla
Congrats by the way!When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
" a comparatively large write off allowance "
brilliant0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards