POPLA appeal letter ref EXCEL parking

modesty46

the bullet points are actually numbers 1- 38 in answer to excels reply.

Coupon-mad

That's great - don't worry you will win. But change this, LOL at the automatic spelling which must have occurred here from your PC, as it's quite funny:

the vehicle was defiantly not parked...

modesty46

hahaha good old auto correct. thanks.

modesty46

Popla appeal won.
very happy, and many thanks for all help.
here is a copy of the letter.
vehicle with registration mark *x*x*x*x. The operator recorded that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket/permit.
The appellant made many representations; however, I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The implication of this submission is that the parking charge is in fact punitive.
Appellants are not to be expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance and so should be proportionate to the loss suffered. Accordingly, the charge must be shown not to be punitive. This is illustrated by the operator providing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which reflects the parking charge.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator submitted a breakdown of the losses they incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included costs such as the debt recovery process and final reminder process costs which cannot be taken into account as the operator has not incurred this loss as a result of the appellant’s breach. I am not minded to accept the debt recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also find that the operator cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate heading of losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because the procedure for dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way so that the appellant can re-appeal to the operator. Therefore I find that it is not reasonable for the operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the appellant’s breach. This is because it appears that a substantial portion of the costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage Process”.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that the damages sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

Coupon-mad

Nice one - have you added it to the POPLA Appeals sticky at the top of the forum for posterity?