UKPC - Crawley Leisure Centre parking outside lines

MoneyTwister

Won :beer:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 25 August 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay despite signage at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so.
The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included “Site based” costs. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. The operator has stated, “The site-based costs include (but are not limited to) the cost of producing the charge itself with accompanying weatherproof wallet, which directly relates to the breach.” However, I find that the operator has failed to show how a sum of £36.21 has been calculated on these items alone. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

mortware

I'm also about to submit an appeal to POPLA for the same car park. My case differs as I wasn't parked in a bay at all, but near the bays in (my own words) an "unobtrusive and safe manner".

OOC, what options did you select when submitting the appeal on the POPLA website? I have the following:
I was not improperly parked.
The parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount.
The vehicle was stolen.
I am not liable for the parking charge.

I'm thinking the 2nd and 4th options would be appropriate. What do you think?

bod1467

Choose them all except the obvious one to NOT choose. It really doesn't matter, because your appeal probably barely touches any of the selected options anyway.

MoneyTwister

I only put in the last option for my appeal.

As an aside, I have not been back to the site. Perhaps childish, but it peed me off so much that I decided I never want to go there again.

Your appeal should succeed on the same basis as mine, i.e. non genuine estimate of loss.

mortware

Thanks - and congratulations on your win

mortware

Just to say, I won my appeal as well. It was based on the fact that the other party failed to supply their details. Which didn't give me the sense of victory over the oppressors that I wanted...

Still felt good though, and most importantly, I won.

MoneyTwister

Good news

Juan_Sebastien_Lopez

Hi. I have a similar situation to the one detailed on this thread. In the pouring rain the other night when the car park was rammed full in the evening (darkness), I parked at the end of a lane where there was more than ample space for other vehicles to pass. As it was a free car park, I didn't think for a second that there would be any parking charges or conditions. In my honest opinion, the parking was sensible and reasonable. Emergency vehicles would certainly have had no difficulty in passing the location where I parked. I came out of the cinema to find the £100 (early payment reduction to £60) ticket on my windscreen. Could I have grounds as mentioned above in relation to the lack of a 'loss' - ie; the company have not incurred any loss as I haven't failed to pay or taken up more than one marked space? The offence wording on the ticket is "Not parked correctly within the markings of the pay or space". Any help would be greatly appreciated...

Juan_Sebastien_Lopez

Forgot to mention that I have gone through their appeal process and they have responded with this:
We have investigated your appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm that this Parking Charge was correctly issued because there are sufficient signs at the Crawley Leisure Park warning drivers that there is no parking outside of designated bays, this includes parking across two bays.

Ralph-y

hello Juan Sebastien Lopez, and welcome to the forum ....

we will ask you to read through the newbies thread (below) and then start a new thread .....

the thread explains that we require one poster per thread ... as confusion can ensue if this is not compiled with .... the thread you where on was a 2014 one ... and such is out of date ....:eek:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

please read and then ask for advice if needed

good luck

Ralph:cool: