UKPC private residents car park fine

Coupon-mad

Hot_Bring wrote: »

I've scan read it and it looks good apart from some lack of spaces ( probably a cut and paste issue ) and you can get rid of point 4. Whether UKPC pay the correct rates / taxes is utterly irrelevant to the lack of legitimacy of their charge.

Totally agree - I sigh with frustration every time I see wasted words about Planning Permission and Business rates in an otherwise good POPLA appeal template. POPLA are not going to look into any of that. None of those words appears in the examples I link in 'How to win at POPLA' in the NEWBIES sticky thread, AFAIK (if they do then tell me and I will remove them as examples!).

Jlats

Hi - Just thought I'd let you know that I received a win from POPLA last week. Amazing. Thanks for all your help.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
The Operator issued a parking charge notice (‘PCN’) for parking outside the markings of a parking bay. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised terms of parking which prohibited parking outside of marked bays. The Operator produced a document to show how the amount of the PCN was calculated.
It is the Appellant’s case, amongst other grounds, that the £100 parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and was tantamount to a penalty. The Appellant submits that the amount of the parking charge bares no relationship to any alleged loss caused by her having parked at the site outside of a marked bay.
The Operator also submitted that the case of Robophone Facilities v Blank maintained that the burden was on the Appellant to show that the amount of the charge was a penalty and not liquidated damages.
Having carefully examined the submissions of both parties, I find that:
1. The onus is on an operator to demonstrate that an appellant is liable for a parking charge. However, it is for an appellant to challenge the basis of the charge if he or she disputes that it amounts to damages. The Appellant submitted that the charge did not represent damages and was in fact a penalty. Accordingly, the Appellant has challenged whether the amount was genuine and it was for the
Operator to respond to that issue;
2. The Operator accepts that the amount of the parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from breach of the contract. Where there is an initial loss caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Any consequential loss incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the PCN and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be recovered;
3. The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a
PCN. However, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that parking in this free car park outside of a marked bay did not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any
3 06 May 2014
estimate of loss.
Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.
I allow the appeal on this ground.
It does not fall for me to decide any remaining issues.
Matthew Shaw
Assessor

ColliesCarer

Congratulations Jlats - I'll add your post above to the POPLA decisions thread hall of fame.

Umkomaas

However, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that parking in this free car park outside of a marked bay did not cost anything.

And should have continued to say ....... 'and the charge is therefore entirely punitive in nature'.

Well done OP - PPC smoke and mirrors exposed once again.