POPLA help please

CIMad

All,

Thanks for your help. Wasn't sure whether to post this in here or decisions thread.

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at Sportspace, on nn May 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark AB12ABC.

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

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
The operator issued parking charge notice number arising out of the presence at Sportspace, on , of a vehicle with registration mark . The operator recorded that the vehicle was not authorised to remain at the site for longer than 20 minutes.

The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.

It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The operator has responded by stating that the amount of the parking charge is a term of the contract and not an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. The operator has also provided a breakdown of the losses incurred by them if the amount of the parking charge notice is held to be an amount representing damages for a breach of contract. I find that it is not permissible for the operator to do this. This is because when a contract is formed the intention of the parties is fundamental. It is clear that the operator has intended the amount of the parking charge notice to be consideration and not damages.
Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, after objectively assessing the signage displayed at the site, I find that the signage does not mean that motorists may remain at the site for longer than 20 minutes when not authorised to do so provided that they pay £100, which would make the amount of the parking charge consideration. However, I do find that the signage means that remaining at the site for longer than 20 minutes when not authorised to do so is not permitted and that a parking charge of £100 will be issued to vehicles. Therefore, I find that the amount of the parking charge does represent damages for a breach of contract.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Umkomaas

Another 'If we can't win it one way, we'll try it another way, in fact any way will do as long as we win, we'll say whatever you want us to say'.

Oh dear, it's 'Heads we win, tails you lose'. Unfortunately the coin landed on its edge. :rotfl:

Well done CIMad!

Redx

well done m8, I would post it in both, so please post it here too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

ppc, decision and assessor

Dee140157

Considering carefully, all the evidence before me, after objectively assessing the signage displayed at the site, I find that the signage does not mean that motorists may remain at the site for longer than 20 minutes when not authorised to do so provided that they pay £100, which would make the amount of the parking charge consideration. However, I do find that the signage means that remaining at the site for longer than 20 minutes when not authorised to do so is not permitted and that a parking charge of £100 will be issued to vehicles. Therefore, I find that the amount of the parking charge does represent damages for a breach of contract.

Do you have a phot of the actual signage of this car park. Is it written like the IPC ones I terms of a contractual fee. If so this would be interesting words to throw at IPC and their signs.

CIMad

I'll add a pic when I get back to my PC

CIMad

Dee140157

Ah well, bang goes that idea. Clearly states breach of terms and conditions. Thanks anyway.