Charge Notice - Highview

dmsjlloyd

Hi, I have just received notification that the appeal has been granted Thank you so much for all your help! it seems that Highview did try and provide some info as to the GPEOL but not enough.

Copied below for you;


(Appellant)

-v-

HighviewParking Limited (Operator)

TheOperator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxx arising out of the presence at VictoriaCentre, Consett, on xx April 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.

TheAppellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

TheAssessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined thatthe appeal be allowed.

TheAssessor’s reasons are as set out.

TheOperator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.





Reasons for the Assessor’sDetermination

On xxxx April 2014, a parkingcharge notice was applied to a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxx for violating the terms and conditionsdisplayed on signage.

The Operator’s case is that theterms and conditions on site indicate that the site is private car park with 2hours free parking between 6am and 8pm. They say that the Appellant’s vehiclewas captured entering the site at 15:51 and exiting at 18:24 violating theterms and conditions displayed on signage. They have provided images of thevehicle and a genuine pre-estimate of loss statement to support their case.

The Appellant has made a numberof submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I amallowing this appeal on, namely that the amount of the parking charge notice isnot a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Operator rejected theAppellant’s representations, as set out in the correspondence they sentbecause, they state that a breach of the car park conditions had occurred byviolating the terms and conditions displayed on signage.

They state that they havecalculated the amount of the parking charge notice as a reasonable charge forliquidated damages as they incur significant costs in managing the parkinglocation to ensure compliance to the stated terms and conditions and to followup any breaches of these that are identified. They advise that some of thesecosts include but are not restricted to the following: erection and maintenanceof site, wages and salaries, DVLA fees etc. They also cited some case law tosupport their case.

The burden is on the Operator to address the Appellant’ssubmissions and to prove that the amount of the parking charge notice is agenuine pre-estimate of loss. Although the Operator has produced a report ofcosts incurred in operating and managing the parking site, I find this to be ageneral list of operational costs and this list does not address the loss thatwas caused by the Appellant’s breach of the terms and conditions of parking andit would have been incurred regardless of whether the Appellant breached theterms and conditions. The Operator also failed to provide any figuresrepresenting these costs. I am therefore, not satisfied that the Operator hasproved that the amount for the parking charge notice is a genuine pre-estimate ofloss.



Considering all the evidence before me, I find that theOperator has failed to prove that the amount of the parking charge notice is agenuine pre-estimate of loss.

Aurela Qerimi
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
Assessor
[/FONT][/FONT]

Dee140157

Excellent news. Well done. Thank you for putting on POPLA thread. Could you just tack the assessors name onto the end of your post. It's always good to see who is making the right decisions!

dmsjlloyd

Aurela Qerimi
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
Assessor
[/FONT][/FONT]