VCS appeal upheld by POPLA

ivy2014

I received notification on 21/5/2014 that my appeal against VCS was upheld today.
The text was

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination


[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]At xxxxxxxxxxxx[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic], a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX was recorded exiting the xxxxxxxxx after a stay of 190 minutes. A parking charge notice was issued for parking for longer than the maximum period permitted. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]
The operator’s case is that the signage at the signage at the site clearly states that the car park is a customer only car park and the maximum stay is 2 hours. There are a number of highly prominent signs throughout the parking area and therefore as the appellant had parked in excess of the maximum permitted stay, he had contravened the parking terms and conditions.

The appellant’s case is that the amount demanded is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and the operator has failed to show that there is a contract in place which grants them the authority to charge drivers. The appellant additionally notes that the claimed contract start time is before the driver is able to look at the conditions and the signage at the site is unclear.

Considering carefully all the evidence before me, the appellant has stated that the charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. From the wording of the signage on site, the charge appears to represent liquidated damages, which is compensation agreed in advance. This means that the amount sought should represent the losses incurred as a result of a breach of the terms and conditions.

The operator has sought to justify the charge and stated that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss as the operator ‘incurs significant costs in ensuring compliance with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up on any breaches of these identified.’

Although the operator has provided a breakdown of the losses incurred, a substantial proportion of the charge appears to relate to debt recovery. As cases may not necessarily proceed to debt recovery stage, the individual amounts listed are not substantially linked to the loss incurred as a result of the breach; which was parking in excess of the maximum permitted stay. I am therefore not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently shown that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. As a result, I need not decide other issues raised by the appellant.
[/FONT]

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.




[FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic][FONT=Century Gothic,Century Gothic]Many thanks for all the advice on the website.


In the contract conditions between VCS and client (the land owner?), it stated that VCS could only cancel 5 PCN's per month at the request of the VCS's client. As the incident happened on 27 Feb my request for TK Maxx to ask for cancellation probably was after the small number of cancellations allowed had been used up. [/FONT]

[/FONT]





[/FONT]

Dee140157

Good news well done. Please can you put this win on the POPLA appeal thread too, giving the name of the assessor?
Your final point is interesting. So if you ask for a PCN to be cancelled at the beginning of the month you stand more chance than at the end. Seems a bit unfair!