Permit visable but not on windscreen

BritishBeef

Hi all.
Just had the result of the POPLA Appeal and it's a success!!

Many thanks to all that have helped me with this but especially to Coupon-mad :beer:. Thank you so very very much! It's all so very appreciated.


For your info, here's the result in detail:

Reasons for the Assessors Determination


The Operator issued a parking charge notice (¶PCN) for parkin-g in a permit
only area without displaying a valid permit. The Operator submits that a £100
parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised conditions of
parking which required display of a valid permit. The Operator produced a
document to show the basis on which the parking charge was estimated.

The Appellant disputes that the PCN was properly issued. Amongst other
grounds, it is the Appellants case that the parking chareprgeres ent does not
a genuine pre-estimate of the economic loss caused to the landowner by the
alleged breach. The Appellant submits that no loss was caused whatsoever.

The Operator accepts that the amount of the parking charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of the damages due for breach of the parking contract. The
estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue at a Pay & Display site.

Where there is an initial loss caused by the presence of an appellants vehicle
in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a
Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Consequential losses
incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the PCN and staff costs
involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be
recovered.

The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a PCN. However, there
is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that parking
in this free car park without a permit on display did not cost
anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not
consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any estimate of loss.

Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the
Appellants submission that the parking charge is unenfor ceable.

I allow the appeal on this ground alone.

Dee140157

Well done. Can you post this on the POPLA appeals thread with the assessors name please. Always good for newbies to see the successes in one place and helps keeps up with good appeal reasons.

I like the way this appeal win has been worded.

BritishBeef

Dee140157 wrote: »

Well done. Can you post this on the POPLA appeals thread with the assessors name please. Always good for newbies to see the successes in one place and helps keeps up with good appeal reasons.

I like the way this appeal win has been worded.

Thanks Dee. Will do. Do you have a link to the thread for me to post this please?

Dee140157

Here you go
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Umkomaas

It appears that parking in this free car park without a permit on display did not cost anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any estimate of loss.

Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the
Appellants submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.

I think this is an important statement in respect of a free car park and should be quoted in other free car park appeals.

@OP - well done on getting this decision. If we could have the name of the Assessor, the date of the decision and the decision reference number, that would be extremely useful. Even better would be a scan of the decision.

BritishBeef

Text version:

Reasons for the Assessors Determination


The Operator issued a parking charge notice (¶PCN) for parkin-g in a permit
only area without displaying a valid permit. The Operator submits that a £100
parking charge is now due in accordance with the advertised conditions of
parking which required display of a valid permit. The Operator produced a
document to show the basis on which the parking charge was estimated.

The Appellant disputes that the PCN was properly issued. Amongst other
grounds, it is the Appellants case that the parking chareprgeres ent does not
a genuine pre-estimate of the economic loss caused to the landowner by the
alleged breach. The Appellant submits that no loss was caused whatsoever.

The Operator accepts that the amount of the parking charge is a genuine
pre-estimate of the damages due for breach of the parking contract. The
estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue at a Pay & Display site.

Where there is an initial loss caused by the presence of an appellants vehicle
in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a
Pay & Display ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Consequential losses
incurred in pursuing that initial loss, such as issuing the PCN and staff costs
involved in responding to subsequent representations, may also be
recovered.

The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a PCN. However, there
is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. It appears that parking
in this free car park without a permit on display did not cost
anything. Accordingly, costs incurred by issuing the PCN are not
consequential to an initial loss and fall outside of any estimate of loss.

Consequently, I do not have the evidence before me to refute the
Appellants submission that the parking charge is unenfor ceable.

I allow the appeal on this ground alone.

BritishBeef

Umkomaas wrote: »

@OP - well done on getting this decision. If we could have the name of the Assessor, the date of the decision and the decision reference number, that would be extremely useful. Even better would be a scan of the decision.

Done. I've posted a copy of the decision in the POPLA decisions thread

BritishBeef

EDIT:

OOps posted it to this thread didn't I!

Now posted to the decisions thread too and I've also removed the censoring of the decision reference number.