Premier Park NTK

Coupon-mad

You don't need to include photos - it's up to them to rebut your appeal & show photos, and part of their 'evidence' (which you get sent too) has to show the NTK. It's a fact that, without a POFA compliant NTK they are stuffed. The Assessor will probably find the case based on 'no GPEOL' though as they find that easier!

You'll win! Submit it online as an appeal to POPLA ticking 3 out of 4 boxes (not 'stolen car').

mrmojorisin04

Thanks CM. i'll let you know how I get on.

mrmojorisin04

I won the appeal, GPEOL:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘Invalid permit’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.

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) There was insufficient signage on site to bring the terms of parking to the attention of motorists.
d) The parking charge notice issued to the Appellant does not meet the relevant required criteria of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss which may be 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. Provided an initial loss can be demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any pre-estimate of loss. In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.

The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge notice. Whilst these heads of loss do not seem to include general operational costs, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The Operator has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been caused initially by the Appellant’s invalid permit.

I note that the Operator has made reference to a recently decided case; however, no transcript of this case has been produced, nor has it been applied to the facts in this case.

Therefore, taking together the evidence before me, I cannot find that the Operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

Dee140157

Good news. Please can you pop it onto the POPLA thread too along with the name of the assessor.

I particularly like these words:

I note that the Operator has made reference to a recently decided case; however, no transcript of this case has been produced, nor has it been applied to the facts in this case.