Parking Charge Notice... Excel Parking

clinne123

This might be a daft question but which of the 4 reasons should I choose ticket exceeded the appropriate amount or I am not liable for the charge... or can I choose both...

Redx

all except stolen , as they dont really give you the options we think they should give you, like no contract and not a gpeol for example

clinne123

Well have uploaded my appeal to POPLA look forwards to seeing the results of the appeal... Thanks for the help will leave a message once the result is back...

clinne123

Just a quick update about my problem with excel parking and my POPLA case...


Well I won the case and did not have to pay them a penny... not heard from them since, got my appeal back on the 21st of May.


Below is the actual PDF I received minus private details... Thanks for all the help I couldn't of done it without all your help...





The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXXXXXXXX arising out of the presence at Middlesbrough Leisure Park, on 18 December 2013, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX.




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 [FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]allowed. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]


The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination




[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]‘Left the leisure park’[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking which state that a parking charge notice would be issued to, [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]"[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Anyone parking in a blue bay & leaving/walking off site". [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

The Appellant does not dispute that a breach of the terms of parking occurred.


It is the Appellant’s case that:


a) The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss which could have been caused by the alleged breach.


b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority to issue a parking charge notice in relation to the land in question.


c) The contravention did not occur as the ‘site’ has not been clearly defined.


d) The Operator’s Notice to Keeper does not meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the reason for issue on the Notice to Keeper does not match that on the Notice to Driver.


There appears to be no dispute that the terms of parking were clearly displayed, or that the driver breached the terms of parking at this site; however, it is clear that the Appellant does not admit to having been the driver of the vehicle, and the Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that he was, in fact, the driver. Accordingly, it seems that the Operator is seeking to hold the Appellant liable as the keeper of the vehicle according to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Primary liability for a parking charge lies with the driver of the vehicle according to the law of contract or tort; however, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides that the keeper of a vehicle can be held liable for the charge if the four conditions set-out are met. This liability is statutory, and so for the Operator to demonstrate keeper liability, it must show that all of the requirements of the Schedule have been met. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]3 20 May 2014 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

The second of these conditions set-out is that: either a Notice to Driver in accordance with paragraph 7 of the schedule, followed by a Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 8, is given; or, a Notice to Keeper in accordance with paragraph 9 is given.


In this case, there is no dispute that a Notice to Driver was issued to the vehicle, before a Notice to Keeper was sent to the Appellant by post.


[/FONT]

[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Paragraph 7(2)(b) states that the Notice to Driver must describe the charge due as well as ‘[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]the circumstances in which the requirement [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][to pay the parking charge] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]arose(including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable’. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]This paragraph, amongst other things, requires the Operator to give the reason for which the charge was issued. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Notice to Driver produced gives the reason for issue as ‘[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]left leisure park[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]’. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Paragraph 8(2)(b) requires that the Notice to Keeper ‘[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]repeat the information in that notice [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][the Notice to Driver] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]as required by paragraph 7(2)(b),(c) and (f). [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]The Notice to Keeper produced gives the reason for issue as ‘[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Parked in a restricted street in prescribed [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][sic] [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]hours’[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]’[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]

This reason is completely different to that given in the Notice to Driver, and so I must that that the Notice to Keeper did not repeat the required information, and so does not meet the criteria for a valid Notice to Keeper.


Accordingly, as no liability for the Appellant has been proven either as the driver or as the keeper of the vehicle, I must allow the appeal.


I need not decide any other issues.
[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

That's an unusual one - thanks for posting! The NTK didn't repeat the info in the NTD!