Excel Parking - Ebbw Vale, The Walk - Surprise Surprise!

Umkomaas

Add anything you think will help your appeal; you have the right to do so.

I'm not sure whether we've previously seen an Excel contract (redacted or otherwise), so if you wouldn't mind hosting it on Photobucket or Tinypics and linking it here that would be useful.

VorTechS

There does appear to be this file, out there in the ether....

http://stashbox.org/1493416/123456789.pdf

Umkomaas

VorTechS wrote: »

There does appear to be this file, out there in the ether....

http://stashbox.org/1493416/123456789.pdf

Thanks for that, I'd not seen it previously. On a quick read it looks mightily one-sided.

VorTechS

Umkomaas wrote: »

Thanks for that, I'd not seen it previously. On a quick read it looks mightily one-sided.

I can't imagine why you'd have never seen it previously.
But yes, very one-sided.

VorTechS

Well, I never got a chance to submit anything additional to the case - as POPLA yesterday morning quite promptly e-mailed their decision over.

POPLA wrote:

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

From the wording of the signage on site, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. This means that the amount sought should represent the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and
conditions.

The operator has sought to justify the charge and stated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss as the operator ‘incurs significant costs in ensuring compliance with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified.’

Although the operator has provided a breakdown of the losses incurred, a substantial proportion of the charge appears to relate to debt recovery. As cases may not necessarily proceed to debt recovery stage, the individual amounts listed are not substantially linked to the loss incurred as a result of the
breach; which was parking without purchasing a valid pay and display ticket.

I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. As a result, I need not decide other issues raised by the appellant.

A big thank you to everyone that has helped me through this process, I'm so glad I decided to do a bit more research and pipe up, otherwise the result would have been very much different!