vs Highview - POPLA Evidence pack

youseeme

Thanks for your input RedX have responded with your suggestion bazster... thank you again!

abacab

bazster wrote: »

Except of course for Redx' excellent point. You could respond that "I note the operator's contention that the vehicle was 'on site' for 2 hours and 44 minutes. Being 'on-site' is not parking, and it is perfectly conceivable that for 14 minutes or more while the vehicle was on-site the driver was looking for and driving to a parking space, and later leaving the parking space and exiting the car park. The operator has adduced no evidence that the vehicle was actually parked for a duration exceeding 2 hours 30 minutes. I refer you to case 3JD08399 in the Altrincham County Court where District Judge Hayes ruled that driving around looking for a space is not parking: http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4afb375a97d05d5a80df6?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 "

We had a ticket for the same amount of overstay.
This car park has an all seeing eye at the entrance to the said car park which records you entering and then exiting,but on busy days it is quite common to have a queue form to exit before passing the camera.Factor in a grace period,and it would be very easy to park for 2.5 hours but be on site for the time they are claiming.

youseeme

Hi again,

So Highview have just added another piece of 'evidence' linked here (remove space between http & /)...
http /1drv.ms/1o7FE4F

Do you think I should respond, as this is their counter to my "No authority to levy charges" point used in my popla appeal.

The Popla hearing was supposed to be on or soon after 29th July.

Thanks for any help,

J

Herzlos

I think you should respond to and refute everything you can, or at least put pressure on them to provide decent evidence.

bazster

I think you should respond that:

(i) You do not accept a scrap of paper with both the landowner and signatory details scribbled illegibly as evidence of authority and

(ii) How many more opportunities does Highview get to attempt to refute my refutations of their evidence? The date for the adjudication has come and gone, is PoPLA going to permit Highview to keep massaging its evidence indefinitely?

youseeme

Thanks, will do just that, did wonder if it was just me that couldn't make out the random scribbles on the paper!

Umkomaas

youseeme wrote: »

Thanks, will do just that, did wonder if it was just me that couldn't make out the random scribbles on the paper!

Looks like an order for a Chinese takeaway

youseeme

Haha, it does indeed, I hope the Popla assessor sees it the same way!

youseeme

Hi,

I'm back with good news at last, my Popla appeal was supposed to be heard on or soon after the 29st July, I just received the decision through minutes ago...

At 11:41, on June 3 2014, an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
system recorded the Appellant’s vehicle entering Riverside Retail Park A.
The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the car parking
conditions by exceeding the maximum duration of stay permitted at the site.

The Appellant made representations stating his case. One of the points raised
by him was that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the
alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an initial loss
which may be caused by the presence of an appellant’s vehicle in breach of
the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to purchase a Pay & Display
ticket) this loss will be recoverable. Provided an initial loss can be
demonstrated, any consequential losses incurred in pursuing that initial loss,
such as issuing the parking charge notice and staff costs involved in
responding to subsequent representations, may also be included in the any
pre-estimate of loss.
In certain situations, such as where the breach involves a
failure to pay a tariff, this initial loss will be obvious. Where it is not obvious, it is
for the Operator to demonstrate this initial loss when providing its pre-estimate
of loss. This initial loss is fundamental to the charge and, without it, costs
incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been
caused by the Appellant’s breach. The Operator would have been in the
same position had the parking charge notice not been issued.
The Operator detailed its likely losses following issue of a parking charge
notice. Whilst these heads of loss do not seem to include general operational
costs, there is nothing before me to show there was any initial loss. The
Operator has not indicated how they have calculated or reached a figure of
£24.50, which they state is the average spend per customer at Riverside Retail
Park A. I am not minded to accept that this figure relates to the Appellant’s
case on this occasion.
Therefore, taking together the evidence before me, I cannot find that the
Operator has demonstrated that the parking charge represents a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.
I need not decide any other issues.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Sakib Chowdhury
Assessor

Particular huge thanks to bazster, Dee140157 and Redx for all your help with my evidence.

I used the POPLA appeal from this thread...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4957775

I will also add this to the Popla Decisions thread.

J

bazster

Well a win is a win, but that is all utter rubbish about how the after-the-event costs can be included in the pre-estimate of loss. As for there being no general operational costs included, what are staff costs if not exactly that?

PoPLA becomes less honest by the day.