We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parking charge notice for 17 seconds....help needed
Comments
-
They've taken a photo of your vehicle entering and leaving the car park. That isn't actual parking.
Have a look at paragraph 19, not binding, but illustrates the point,...
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1Illegitimi non carborundum:)0 -
Can I say a massive thank you to everyone. Today i received the popla decision finding in my favour.
Reasons given are
The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal for the reason set out below.
The appellant’s case is that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred by themselves as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as office rent, parking attendant equipment costs and membership fees which do not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss, as this is not a loss resulting from the appellant’s breach. I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered 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.
Hope this helps other people, now I will complain to dvla
Cheers peter0 -
I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach.
In other words, not just an attempt to hoodwink you over the level of 'losses' incurred as a result of 17 seconds on the car park, but they've tried the same stunt with POPLA.
I'm so glad you won your appeal. Well done Peter.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards