Parking Fine Fforest-fach Swansea (Highview)

Umkomaas

[1'. 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;

1 - Wages and Salaries including Employers NI Contributions
2 - Contribution to Head Office Overheads
3 - IT systems, software, licences and peripherals
4 - Legal, Accounting and other Professional Advice
5 - Print, Postage and Stationery
6 - Necessary Subscriptions - inc BPA, POPLA and ICO
7 - DVLA Fees / Processing Costs
8 - Repairs and Maintenance of Parking Payment and Enforcement Equipment
9 - Vehicle and Mobile Costs
10 - Erection and Maintenance of Site Signage
11 - Depreciation on Equipment and Vehicles
12 - Sundry Other Related Costs

How dopey can they get? Anyone who has been paying even a modicum of attention to this stuff over the past 12 months will know that this list is a GPEOL own goal. It has been rejected every time by POPLA. And to pay £27 to be reminded, once again, indicates how dense some of these knuckle draggers really are.

And to further confirm this (and the fact that this is an old template response), look here:

2. 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 ofthe parking contract or for an act oftrespass from f,150 to f100. 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 fwellwithin) the recommendations set out within Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice

They actually mean October 2012 (hardly 'last October' in June 2014!) - so this really does 'date' their template response. And that's not even considering the other bollox in the rest of this paragraph!

Cezly

Thanks for the reassurance on this Umkomaas, it looked well put out to the uneducated in these matters. Appreciate it

Coupon-mad

Cezly wrote: »

Hi all, have received an evidence pack from poppa today with highviews responses . Is this a standard reply, it seems pretty detailed as it has photographic evidence of the signage and a google maps image showing where all of the signage is placed. (seems to be more signs indicated on the map than there are in reality).

Yep that's normal, and they get it wrong sometimes:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/highview-parking-send-in-map-of-wrong.html

It's based on a template no doubt written by some hopeless person at the BPA ages ago because the wording is also used verbatim by other PPCs like Euro Car Parks:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=27481

and Excel:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63767815&postcount=55

and ParkingTicketing Ltd:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4871707

Not such a GENUINE pre-estimate of loss then is it, having been written for them because they are all too stupid to work out some figures themselves! Not only that, it includes irrelevant cases which are not about 'breach/loss' like the Combined Parking Solutions ones!

Is it just wait now for a decision?

You could email POPLA quickly before they finalise the decision, with your final word about anything important you spot (like 'there are less signs in reality than the map shows' - but you'd have to prove it). But TBH they are about to lose as they haven't broken down the heads of cost of their 'GPEOL'. Clearly the charge isn't a GPEOL at all but is based on the BPA maximum.

You will win now, as you can see so many people before you have beaten that sorry template. It really is amazing that PPCs bother, why don't they cancel and avoid the POPLA fee?

Cezly

I am checking the signage tomorrow.

Cezly

Got the decision through today, We won. Thank you to all who helped with advice and positive assurance. If it helps anyone, have posted the letter from popla here showing reasons for winning the appeal.

Thanks again everyone, am singing your praises to anyone else who needs this sort of help.....

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxx arising out
of the presence at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, on xxxxxxxxxxxxx, of a
vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxxx. The operator recorded that the
appellant exceeded the maximum stay of x hours.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them
all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge notice does
not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The signage produced in evidence by the operator states that a parking
charge notice would be issued for “failure to comply”. This wording appears
to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the
parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate
of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the
parking terms.

The operator’s case is that the charge is a genuine pre – estimate of loss, the
operator has sought to justify this by providing, a list of their expenses.
Amongst other things the operator has included expenses such as IT systems,
software, licences and peripherals, repairs and maintenance of parking
payment and enforcement equipment, vehicle and mobile costs, erection
and maintenance of site signage and depreciation of equipment and
vehicle costs, however this does not justify a loss resulting from a breach, the
operator would have incurred these costs even if the breach did not occur. A
substantial amount of the expenses listed by the operator do not represent
the loss incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach.

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, I find that as the
appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge does not represent
a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the burden shifts to the operator to prove
otherwise. I find that the operator has not discharged this burden.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Thanks

Umkomaas

Well done Cezly, super result, especially as this was one clutched from the hands of debt collectors (not that they have any power, but just an ongoing nuisance once they've got their claws into you) and liability transferred to the driver - so not a usual straightforward case.

And just as a reminder of what I said a couple of weeks ago in post #62 re their list of GPEOL heads:

How dopey can they get? Anyone who has been paying even a modicum of attention to this stuff over the past 12 months will know that this list is a GPEOL own goal. It has been rejected every time by POPLA. And to pay £27 to be reminded, once again, indicates how dense some of these knuckle draggers really are.

Lemmings or what?

Glass of wine I suspect tonight?

abacab

Looking good for our Highview ticket then,as this is the exact same working used in their evidence pack to Popla(obviously a quick cut and paste job)
Oh,and they sent in pictures of signs from the wrong car park also(of which Popla was dutifully informed.)
On the plus side for them it's good to see that they are keeping the inmates of Regents park zoo busy .

Cezly

Yes thanks once again all, I did check the signs and there are some errors on the plan that they sent, I also took a picture of their main entry sign that someone has put a hemmer through, after I stopped laughing a guy who saw me taking a picture sid it has been like that for a long time....

Been singing your praises to all and fantastic service, keep up the excellent work against these scammers.....

[IMG][/img]

Umkomaas

I also took a picture of their main entry sign that someone has put a hemmer through

Was that a hammer, or a Hummer? :rotfl:

Cezly

Should have been a Hummer but I guess Hammer did the trick