Parking Charge Advice - Highview Parking

bazster

Does Highview have a good whine in its evidence pack? If so, please post it up: Highview's whinges at PoPLA are hilarious!

You are correct about the card charges. They are only permitted to make card charges in line with the real cost of processing, which could plausibly be £1.50 for credit cards, but certainly not debit cards where the cost is pence.

totallytech

bazster wrote: »

Does Highview have a good whine in its evidence pack? If so, please post it up: Highview's whinges at PoPLA are hilarious!

Well this is the covering letter - bless them!

Case Summary
Mr XXX chose to use his opportunity to appeal to send us a standard template, claiming that the amount of the charge was punitive and demanding a POPLA code.
We rejected this, due to his refusal to make any attempt to offer any mitigating circumstances that might have caused us to reconsider the charge. By entering this site, he had entered into a contract to either adhere to the terms and conditions in place, or incur a charge. He has since provided POPLA with a more extensive standard template, disputing our right to issue and enforce this charge on various grounds, and claiming that it is not a
genuine pre estimate of loss. We consider the amount of the PCN as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract and contend that it is not a 'penalty'.

We have calculated this sum as a genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in following up on breaches of the terms and conditions on site. The parking charge in this instance was established after consideration of the following costs:
- Legal, Accounting and other Professional Advice in pursuing the Charge
- Preparation and sending of the Parking Charge Notice
- Print, Postage and Stationery
- DVLA Fees / Processing Costs
- Wages and Salaries of staff required to deal with above including Employers NI Contributions

The British Parking Association has reduced the maximum recommended charge that a motorist should be expected to pay for a breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to £100. In this instance the charge being levied is within (well within) the recommendations set out within Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice. This sum, and the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the
landowner and/or his agent of the site.

Parking Charges are fair and reasonable, and have been tested at the Court of Appeal. A charge of £75 was found by HHJ Hegarty QC in the case of Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores (2011) to be a reasonable charge, by which the motorist (when exceeding the specified time limit) would be contractually bound. See also Combined Parking Solutions v Dorrington (2012) and Combined Parking Solutions v Blackburn (2007). Further evidence, that parking charges cannot be viewed as penalties, can be found in Mayhook v National Car Parks and Fuller (2012),
Combined Parking Solutions v Mr Stephen James Thomas
[2008] and Combined Parking Solutions v De Brunner (2007)

We have provided clear evidence that by staying at the location, the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms & conditions of the parking contract including the charges for breach of that contract. There are a large number of signs at the parking location, both at the entrance and throughout the site which offers the parking contract to the motorist, and sets out the terms and conditions of the parking area upon which the operator will rely, and upon which, by remaining at the location, the motorist has agreed to be bound by these terms and conditions clearly show the amount which will become payable if the terms and conditions are breached.

We would contend that it is too late now for the appellant to indicate their unhappiness with the parking charge this should have been done as soon as they saw the signs that stated the parking terms and conditions and charges at the location if the appellant was not prepared to pay such charges and was unhappy with the contract terms, they should not have remained at the location.

bazster

Thanks.

Shame, just a standard template whine. They've obviously given up on their special whines and their empty threats to be "spurred into immediate action".

Redx

they clearly STILL do not understand the gpeol argument as they actually think it applies to them and their own daily running costs , despite the hundreds of times that they have failed to prove this to popla and a simple internet search would tell them why this fails , as would a read of pranksters blogs or even a read of their failures against prankster

they also fail to see that the signage issues wont sway it because we all know that they generally fail the BPA test and that many times they are wrong about their own signs and even produce incorrect maps etc too

frankly, I didnt see any justification for their bluster and its no wonder popla upheld this appeal (and may others against them)

I would ask them to count to ten before sending in any more packs (no wonder PE and others dont bother any more) , the problem being I am not sure they could actually produce a valid count of ten as they would fail to know what to do next having counted up to five on the one hand

abacab

We have recently recieved the evidence pack as above.
Lots of lovely pictures of signs and a nice map too,but the wrong car park.
Oh dear.
Like how they try to justify the cost as administration,but if you don't pay within 28 days,a further admin charge of £40 applies.
So thats 2 lots of admin costs for the same ticket.

Coupon-mad

abacab wrote: »

We have recently recieved the evidence pack as above.
Lots of lovely pictures of signs and a nice map too,but the wrong car park.
Oh dear.
Like how they try to justify the cost as administration,but if you don't pay within 28 days,a further admin charge of £40 applies.
So thats 2 lots of admin costs for the same ticket.

You must tell the Prankster!

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

He posts on here and may see it, if not email and tell him Highview are still failing in the same way!


Also email POPLA and point out 're their evidence pictures - that's not the right car park. I think I win!'.

abacab

Popla informed!
Thanks for all your hard work.

Jaynebet

Coupon-mad wrote: »

As far as Highview are concerned you have said enough in the first appeal, so wait for their reply. And yep, try complaints to various Store Managers - even the Stores you only browsed in (you know you did!) but I would do it in person if you can - take the offending fake PCN with you and complain (that letter is a bit too polite!).

I've received a parking charge from Highview Parking showing that on 16/11/14 I was parked between 10.01 to 12.49 which is longer than the 2 hours allowed in the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. I have been reading the forum links but need guidence on what to do, can't seem to open template letter. Any advice would be great
Many thanks

BenefitMaster

I think I have to get me a Highview ticket...

pogofish

Jaynebet wrote: »

I've received a parking charge from Highview Parking showing that on 16/11/14 I was parked between 10.01 to 12.49 which is longer than the 2 hours allowed in the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. I have been reading the forum links but need guidence on what to do, can't seem to open template letter. Any advice would be great
Many thanks

For starters, you ned to read the Newbies Sticky carefully and start your own thread!