Parking Charge Notice

Paul7285

It also goes on to say :

Breakdown Of Costs


We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract and contend that it is not a ‘penalty’ for a number of reasons;

For the avoidance of doubt, the PCN is a fixed parking charge, and not a penalty for damages/financial loss incurred by the landowners as a result of the Appellants parking (this is not a case of Trespass), and follows the set of contractual acceptance principles defined in Arthur –v- Anker and Vine –v- London Borough of Waltham Forest. This is further reinforced by the recent case involving Vehicle Control Services Limited –v- The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186.



We have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in managing the parking location to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these that are identified. The parking charge in this instance was established after consideration of the following costs which we incur on each ticket issued;

Wages and Salaries including Employers NI Contributions of staff directly attributable to the management of the parking location
Legal, accounting and other professional advice directly relating to parking enforcement issues
Print, Postage and Stationary
Necessary Subscriptions – inc BPA, POPLA and ICO
DVLA Fees / Processing Costs
Repairs and Maintenance of Parking Payment and Enforcement Equipment
Parking Enforcement Vehicle and Mobile Costs
Erection and Maintenance of Site Signage
Depreciation on Equipment and Vehicles

Last October after significant pressure from Government and motoring/consumer organisations, the British Parking Association reduced the maximum recommended charge that a motorist should be expected to pay for a breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to £100. Despite the BPA being unable, due to robust OFT advice, to fix prices at this level, the actions of the Association were welcomed by all stakeholders. In this instance the charge being levied is within (well within) the recommendations set out within Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice
This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landowner and/or his agent of the site.
Parking Charges are fair and reasonable, and have been tested at the Court of Appeal. A charge of £75 was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist (when exceeding the specified time limit) would be contractually bound. See also Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012) and Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007). Further evidence, that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller [2012], Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas [2008]and Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner [2007]
We have provided clear evidence that by staying at the location, the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms & conditions of the parking contract including the charges for breach of that contract. There are a large number of signs at the parking location, both at the entrance and throughout the site which offers the parking contract to the motorist and sets out the terms and conditions of the parking area upon which the operator will rely, and upon which, by remaining at the location, the motorist has agreed to be bound by – these terms and conditions clearly show the amount which will become payable if the terms and conditions are breached.
We would contend that it is too late now for the appellant to indicate their unhappiness with the parking charge – this should have been done as soon as they saw the signs that stated the parking terms and conditions and charges at the location - if the appellant was not prepared to pay such charges and was unhappy with the contract terms, they should not have remained at the location.

Coupon-mad

All of the above is rubbish by PTLtd! Forget it - a breakdown of costs like that one would lose for them at POPLA anyway. More important was this:

http://i.imgur.com/MG9wpLn.jpg

Your sign says 'failure to comply' will result in a PCN. Good, that means they HAVE to be able to show the charge in your case was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Methinks they 'doth protest too much' when they say 'For the avoidance of doubt, the PCN is a fixed parking charge, and not a penalty for damages/financial loss incurred by the landowners as a result of the Appellants parking'

Wrong. It has to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss when you use a sign that says 'failure to comply'!

Did you notice that Redx told you this (which is basic advice if you'd read the sticky threads, to be fair, so we would have hoped you'd be aware already):

also bear in mind that the advice is to wait for the NTK so if you havent got one, you should wait for one before appealing

So just wait for the Notice to Keeper in the post, then send a basic appeal AS KEEPER NOT DRIVER, like the one shown above or a stronger one like one of the examples of first appeals that I link in the NEWBIES FAQs thread. Doesn't matter too much. Please read the sticky threads, especially the Newbies FAQs one and 'Successful complaints about PPCs' especially if there is an on-site retailer involved.

Paul7285

Thank you so much for your advice!

As suggested, I will wait until a NTK is received before I send the appeal letter.

Coupon, would you mind if I sent you a copy of the the appeal letter I have drafted via PM?