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

13»

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=1
    Illegitimi non carborundum:)
  • 1147peter
    1147peter Posts: 6 Forumite
    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 peter
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 43,467 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    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 Street
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

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

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.