Corporate Services Hereford

JamersPad

nigelbb wrote: »

Correct! Do you see why I asked for the EXACT wording?

The sign very clearly states PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY and ALL VeHICLES MUST DISPLAY A VALID PERMIT AT ALL TIMES so anybody who does not have a permit cannot contractually agree to pay anything.

Ah yes I see, Hmmm so what would you suggest to be the best wording for me to use here? Example would really be appreciated, I am useless at this sort of thing, but I am learning a lot here

Coupon-mad

I am at work but am pretty sure there are examples in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread under the hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA' where we've put something like 'it is not a genuine contractual fee as there can be no offer to park in breach' (the one I recall quotes POPLA assessor Marina Kapour so maybe someone can find it if you don't see it in the examples in the NEWBIES thread).

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That looks fine if they are alleging breach. Are they? Don't be fooled by the fact they may have bunged in the words 'contractually agreeing' onto a sign. Most PPCs do not word their signs as contractual fee (tariff in exchange for the right to park).

JamersPad wrote: »

On their sign it merely says that by entering the car park (assuming that I saw the sign in the first instance of course) I am contractually agreeing to pay the charges as advertised.

Almost funny sometimes...I did tell you not to be fooled...

JamersPad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am at work but am pretty sure there are examples in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread under the hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA' where we've put something like 'it is not a genuine contractual fee as there can be no offer to park in breach' (the one I recall quotes POPLA assessor Marina Kapour so maybe someone can find it if you don't see it in the examples in the NEWBIES thread).




Almost funny sometimes...I did tell you not to be fooled...

They are a sneaky lot eh!

JamersPad

I won!!

This is POPLA's response:

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

At 20:04 on 29 May 2014, the operator’s employee observed the vehicle, registration mark *******, parked on The Black Lion property and not displaying a permit. The employee issued a parking charge notice and gathered photographic evidence. This is not disputed by the appellant.
The appellant made representations, stating that: the charge did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the signage was inadequate to create a contract, the operator had no right to enter into contracts in its own name in respect of the site, and required planning consent had not been shown.
The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine pre- estimate of loss issue, the operator stated that the charge represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided a breakdown of figures.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once such a loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a loss that is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow from a breach, and initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of them. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the charge notice is invalid. Having found this, I am not required to consider any further issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Christopher Monk
Assessor

I would like to thank everyone on here for their help!

Coupon-mad

Christopher Monk is another new name for a POPLA Assessor - good on him!

Umkomaas

As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the charge notice is invalid.

As all free car parks have no initial loss, the POPLA position seems clear - and must follow that any charge notice relating to a free car park is invalid!

Quotable quote, presumably?