Failed appeal with Park Watch defence systems

fisherjim

busajohn wrote: »

where is the Just go back to the Parking index page, with these words :
Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking where is this page sorry

You have started your own thread on another forum, thus ones just the same!;)

Coupon-mad

busajohn wrote: »

where is the Just go back to the Parking index page, with these words :
Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking where is this page sorry

Look bottom right of this page and see the Forum Jump. Click 'GO' and hey presto you hop 'home' to page one. You can do this after reading any thread.

bezzy

Huge thanks to everyone for helping me via the forum.
I have now received a response from POPLA with the decision to allow my appeal.
See below:j:beer::T

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700

Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
30 October 2014
Reference 3312524049
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Kevin Berry (Appellant)
-v-
Defence Systems Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number 313699 arising out of the presence at One Stop Shopping Centre, on 17 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark DS63BYM.
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.
3312524049 2 30 October 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 4 August 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark DS63BYM. The operator’s employee recorded that the vehicle entered a no access area.
The appellant raised many grounds of appeal; however I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. 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.
The onus is on the operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, once an appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the onus is on the operator to produce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its further.
In this case the operator has stated that as the parking charge is not in excess of £100 they feel they do not have to justify the parking charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to do this. Once the appellant raises the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator must either argue that the charge is consideration (i.e. the price paid for parking) and so does not have to be a genuine pre-estimate, or that it is liquidated damages in which case the charge must be justified as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator has done neither in this case.
Consequently I must find that the operator has failed to discharge their burden.
Accordingly, I allow the appeal.
Nadesh Karunairetnam
Assessor

Ryan_Bryan

Well done Bezzy. Could you please add this to the POPLA appeals thread at the top of the page as I don't think Defence Systems crop up to often.

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


Mind you, with a case where they don't feel they need to justify their GPEOL it's just as well for their bank balance.

Umkomaas

In this case the operator has stated that as the parking charge is not in excess of £100 they feel they do not have to justify the parking charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Just a fair indication of what they know about any of this.

If Michael Green is successful in court, it's operators like this one who need to be worried!

Half_way

Good result, did you inform the landowner, not the PPC (Pathetic Parking Company ) that you would/may claim any costs from them as a result of the actions of their agents?