After being shouted at ;-)

Guys_Dad

It was interesting to see that the PPC has stated it is a claim for liquidated damages.

If you look at the POPLA Decisions thread, or search it for "liquidated damages", you will find lots of assessments made in the motorists' favour whereby the adjudicator has upheld the appeal on GPEOL as the PPC has failed to specify what was in their GPEOL or included non-GPEOL sums.

If it comes back to you needing further input, then quote word for word from a couple of previous winning appeals specifically on the assessor's statement re liquidated damages and GPEOL.

Boult22

OK - update

have received a response from POPLA entitled 'evidence checklist'

It appears to be a summary of evidence received from G24 - outlines the bare bones of what happened including :-

"....We have taken legal advice and been advised that not only can our parking charges be justified on the basis that they amount to a genuine pre estimated loss but are likely to amount to "liquidated damages". This is because the court's position is that where the parties to a contract agree to fix the amount which is to be paid by way of damages in the event of a breach of contract - which is the basis of the contract detailed on our signage - a sum stipulated in this way (particularly in circumstances where there is difficulty in calculating a precise estimation) is likely to be classed as liquidated damages. Either way, our parking charges are fully enforceable and do not amount to a penalty. You should also be aware that in accordance with Facilities v Blank the onus of proving an amount claimed is a penalty, rather than liquidated damages, is upon you (as the party agains whom the parking charge is claimed).

We confirm that it is not necessary for us to provide you with a breakdown of our parking charges at this time. That information is confidential, but is available and will be provided to the court in the course of court proceedings, if necessary, and if payment has not been made before then."

It goes on to mention that there are sufficient signs, that I am welcome to revisit the car park to check and that the signage complies with the BPA's requirements.

It also goes on to mention how they obtained the registered keepers details, what constitutes a "parking charge" (relevant obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract...., a relevant obligation arising as a result of a trespass (I thought trespass technically had to result in damage - being a statute law and not civil law).

It then says "In this instance a parking charge has been issued based on the fact that the driver of your vehicle entered into a contract with us (by way of parking the vehicle) and our signage (which stated the terms and conditions of parking) having been clearly displayed in the car park"

They have then included copies of letters, my rejection letter, some close up photographs of their signs alleged to be in the car park and a very blurred overhead image (google earth?) of the car park with arrows, which I can only assume, show the entry and exit points of the car park.

There appears to be no instruction / decision on this paper work from POPLA.

I note that they've not addressed that the alleged 'contract' may be unfair.

Do I need to worry at this point?

Would it be worth revisiting the car park to check the (i) number of alleged signs, (ii) whether they are prominent / lit) or even obtain photographs showing the complexity of the car park entry (with a view to showing that any driver would be concentrating on the furniture, the large prominent "Car Park" sign that has no attached caveats etc?

Sorry to keep coming back....

Hot_Bring

Just sit tight - that's the "evidence" pack from G24 not from POPLA. The decision from POPLA will come later.

Coupon-mad

Would it be worth revisiting the car park to check the (i) number of alleged signs, (ii) whether they are prominent / lit) or even obtain photographs showing the complexity of the car park entry (with a view to showing that any driver would be concentrating on the furniture, the large prominent "Car Park" sign that has no attached caveats etc?

No need to do anything - they will now lose! They haven't shown any GPEOL and haven't shown a landowner contract - POPLA Assessor, take your pick!

Boult22

Appeal upheld.

Thank you guys!! (and gals...)

"Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme does require the parking company to have clear authorisation from the landowner, if it it not itself the landowner, as to its role in relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specifically raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the Operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land owner; or, that it has the authority of the land owner to issue parking charge notices at this site. Once the issue is raised by an Appellant, it is for the Operator to demonstrate that it has authority, and a mere statement to the effect that it has a contract will not be sufficient.

Consequently, I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant's submission that it did not have authority to issue a parking charge notice.

Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

I need not decide on other issues."

Thank you for all of your input on this.

TBF - I was expecting more to be made of the GPEOL but it appears that POPLA didn't need to go that far.....

Hot_Bring

Another win against G24 !!!!

Come on G24 ..... still awaiting my court papers you cowards !

Redx

excellent news

please copy and paste it here too https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337 and add G24 as the starter info

adouglasmhor

Half_way wrote: »

I have done a fair bit of car park marshaling - not for a PPC but as a volunteer at community events/raising funds for charity's etc usually in fields for things like steam rally's, country fairs/shows firework display/party's etc etc and I have yet to see a Private parking company employee do anything approaching car park marshaling/management.

I have, I have seen ones in Glasgow Club venue car parks doing it incredibly badly and having tantrums when they are ignored. (Like one who told me to park in LIDL's car park) accross the road as their's was busy).

Boult22

:-)

And the confirmation from the PPC through today.

Nice one MSE Forum members!

BenefitMaster

Boult22 wrote: »

Appeal upheld.

Now send them a bill.

£18 per hour for every hour you spent researching, rewriting, seeking advice.
£25 per letter processed by you (sent or received)
Interest at 8% from the date of your letter saying "costs"

and add on 40% for good measure.

When you write to them, offer a 40% discount for payment in 14 days :A

When they don't pay, or respond, PM me for a Letter of Claim.