JAS Parking (Staples)

secretmachines

hmm, I was told to expect a decision on/around 3rd Nov... it's now the 17th... should I worry?

bod1467

Email POPLA and ask?

secretmachines

decision has just been received... *drumroll*

in your FACE JAS

and YAY for everyone here

secretmachines (Appellant)
-vJAS
Parking Solutions (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at Staples XXX, on XX March 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX.

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 allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.

The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It does not appear to be in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and that the operator’s employee concluded that the driver left the site without using the store on site. They therefore issued a parking charge notice.

The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue, the operator stated that the charge represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided supporting statements.

Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once such a loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a loss that is not the case. I find that the appellant’s statement about losses stemming from unauthorised parking does not show an initial loss, as no basis for the calculations is provided. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow from a breach, an initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of them. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the charge notice is invalid. Having found this, I am not required to consider any further issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Coupon-mad

Congrats! With JAS it was never in doubt! Spread the word, this is how you beat a PCN from a BPA member.