popla appeal query

innocentdriving

hi everyone. i have had a pcn and got through to the popla stage. i have sent my letter to popla and the parking company has sent a response to me. i guess i need to make a response to their response and send that to popla somehow. do i just upload the response to the website as before? also, if i draft the response, is it ok for it to be looked at on here. the parking company have included a signed letter from the landowner but i'm not sure how to refute that so might need some help. thanks.

Coupon-mad

Hiya! Email POPLA any rebuttal (after taking advice here), they are fine about that as long as you put the POPLA code in the subject line. You can't use their appeals page again. Please tell us which firm, show us the appeal and show us the landowner letter.

Oh, and the front page of the PCN with your name and address covered up.

innocentdriving

thanks coupon-mad! i have just drafted a response below and i will get the landowner letter, appeal and NTK up in a moment. i have left out anything to do with the landowner letter and GPEoL as I don't really know how to respond to it:

The attached mobile phone screenshot and corresponding mobile phone bill shows that the vehicle registration and booking reference number were provided.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 paragraphs 8.2a and 8.2b specify that the Notice to Keeper must specify the 'period of parking to which the notice relates'. This paragraph is related to 8.2c, of the same act, which specifies 'repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f)' where paragraph 7.2c specifies 'the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—'... 7.2c(ii) 'no later than the time specified under paragraph (f)' and paragraph 7.2f specifies 'the time when the notice is given and the date.'. It is a requrement under Schedule 4 paragraphs 8.2a and 8.2b to specify the 'period of parking' in addition to the time and date when the notice is given. It is not relevant that the parking charge was issued due to aleged terms and conditions nor is it relavent there is a pay & display or an ANPR monitored car park as this is not specified under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The signage at the date and time that the Parking Charge Notice was issued only displayed an 0845 number. As the signage is claimed to have formed the alleged contract, the contract would therefore be non-complaint to both the BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 and the requirements of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. It is not relevant that there is any intention to change the signage in the future relating to any non-compliance raised. The alleged contract would have only be formed by the signage at the date and time that the Parking Charge Notice was issued.

The BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 paragraph 22.8 states that the operator "must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it". If the single day that the challenge was sent was excluded from the duration, as requested by the operator due to the time of that day, the response was received by day 17 and is not within the 14 days as specified by the BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5. It is not relevant to consider 'working days' as this is not a requirement of the BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 nor are 'working days' specified. In any case, 'working days' are considered in relation to the business operations and as Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. claim to operate '24/7', every day and every hour, on both the website and the signage then the inclusion of 'working days' remains irrelavent.

The details of the registered keeper held by the DVLA, protected under the "Data Protection Act 1998" and provided to car park management companies who are members of either the British Parking Association or Independent Parking Committee, under the "Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002" Section 27 were not obtained for reasonable cause. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. have not identified the keeper for any 'Unauthorised parking' and the keeper has not entered any alleged contracts. It is not relevant that the Notice to Keeper states 'unauthorised parking' as this is not reasonable cause to obtain the registered keepers details.

The Parking Charge Notice was initially challenged with Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. and a rejection letter was received which included a photograph with digital alterations as evidence. The rejection letter also included the supporting statement in relation to the photograph 'the signage in the image below would have been highlighted by your headlights if the driver arrived in the dark' therefore enforcing the use of the photograph as evidence. The BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 paragraph 20.5a specifies that 'All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.' and as this photograph was one of the 'all photographs' used as evidence it is not relevant that any other versions of the images are available or exist. In any case, the keeper was not provided with any 'on line' availability to view the images.

innocentdriving

ok this is the reply to the POPLA appeal from the operator, i have put their quotation from the hotel in italics:

The appellant has not provided any evidence to support that they were a guest at the hotel,
however, IF they were a guest, the following email would have been sent prior to the stay to enable
them to enter the premises as there is no reception at this hotel.


Copy of booking confirmation sent to booker:

Attention!! Important information!!

ARRIVAL DATE: / / .

Your codes for room

---

at the

---

Hotel, Postcode

---

are:

Main Door:

Room:

Regards

(Enter name)

CAR PARKING: Important information TEXT ONLY

There is free car parking for one vehicle per room booked (space permitting) YOU MUST
TEXT YOUR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND BOOKING NUMBER AND HOTEL ON
ARRIVAL AT THE HOTEL AND NOT BEFORE , FAILURE TO DO THIS WILL RESULT
IN A NON- REFUNDABLE PARKING CHARGE TEXT DETAILS TO 07872 468814

Each additional vehicle will be charged at £15 per Vehicle per night you MUST contact
the number above to make payment for second vehicle.

THIS EXCLUDES BARROW-UPON-HUMBER, LANGHAM AND TAVERHAM HOTELS.

No vehicles prior to check in and after check out should be in our car park’s .

CHECK IN TIME

Check in is any time after 16:00 hours Check out is 10:00 Hours


MJB Terms and Conditions: Cancellations or No shows

All bookings made for MJB Hotels and Apartments are non refundable and non transferable.

The booker is held accountable for their booked accommodation for the entire duration that they
have booked for. If there is any damage to the property during this time then it is the booker who
will be fined accordingly.

If you leave the accommodation early or if you do not arrive at all for any reason we would suggest
that you email us at bookings@mjbhotels.com to inform us. If we have not received confirmation
from you that you will not be at the property then you as the booker will be responsible for the
property regardless.

MJB Terms and Conditions: Complaints

All complaints will only be activated if we receive an email from the guest upon their arrival. At
which point we can then resolve the issue.

If you arrive to find you are unhappy with your accommodation then you will need to email MJB
straight away to make your complaint - bookings@mjbhotels.com.

Complaints will not be taken over the telephone.

We will only move forward with a complaint if they are reported at the time the problem is found
i.e. upon arrival. They will not be accepted if you leave our property early without contacting us or
if you email us after your departure date.

In the case of an emergency please call 07872 468814 or 01603 632711 or you can email us at
bookings@mjbhotels.com

MJB Terms and Conditions: Fines

Any fines issued by MJB will automatically be taken from the card details that were used to book
the room or apartment, the guest will be notified via email that the fine has been given. If the fine
is not recovered and left unpaid then this could result in a ban from the card holder booking at an
MJB property in the future and could also result in police action.

All our properties are non smoking, (apart from the Governor’s Hotel), any evidence that there has
been any smoking then the card holder will face a minimum fine of £100, a larger fine for evidence
of smoking of cannabis and the police will be informed.

It is a criminal offence to interfere with any Hotel’s fire alarm system; any evidence and the card
holder will face an instant £100 fine.

The rooms and apartments clearly state before you book how many guests should be in there. No
extra people are to be found inside our properties. This is against our policy and is stated there for
fire safety policy and procedures. A minimum of a £50 fine per extra person will be issued to the
card holder.

We ask guests to leave our properties how they find them, a fine will be issued to the card holder
for any misuse, breakages, damages, missing items, excessive amounts of disarray etc.

We ask guests to respect other guests and residents; music and all noise should be kept to a
reasonable level all times. Any noise complaints will result in the card holder being fined a
minimum of £50 per complaint.

MJB will come round and do regular visits to all our properties throughout the evening, it is our
employee’s right to work in a safe environment and any threatening behavior or abuse will result
in a minimum £50 fine, police action and an instant ban.

MJB would like all our guests to have an enjoyable Hotel experience; this is why we ask all our
guests to be respectful to others. If you have any problems or concerns, we are available 24 hours a
day on 07872 468814.

MJB offers 1 free parking space per booking and this is why they request that the booking reference
is sent with the vehicle registration to ensure that the parking spaces are correctly allocated.

Landowner contract: Please find attached.

Keeper Liability: When a parking charge is issued to a vehicle for parking outside of the advertised
terms and conditions it is not necessary to have a ‘period of parking’, this is only required in a pay &
display car park or an ANPR monitored car park.

Norfolk Parking Enforcements telephone number was changed from 0845 to 0330 and we are
currently updating all signage to reflect this change. When the 0845 number is called, callers are
advised immediately of the new number.

The appellant sent their appeal at ---- on ----, clearly this day cannot be counted as
the offices are not open at that time, the appeal was responded to within 14 working days.

Please see copy of Notice to Keeper in the appellants’ appeal which clearly states ‘Unauthorised
Parking at the reasonable cause.

Whilst an arrow was inserted on the image sent in our rejection template, the original untouched
images were still available to the appellant on line and as shown above.

Contractual Obligation/Parking Charge amount.
As confirmed by the recent dismissal of the ParkingEye v Beavis appeal, we submit that the charge
does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties' rights and obligations arising under the
Contract.
The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the recommended British Parking
Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant with paragraph 19.5 of the BPA code. Furthermore,
the BPA has authorised us to charge at this level.
The PCN was for the sum due to the Appellant, in consideration for the Operator making parking
facilities available to them. To borrow the words of Lord Roskill, with whom the other members of
the House of Lords agreed, in Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co and
others [1983] 1 WLR 399, 402H, he stated:
"The clause was not a penalty clause because it provided for payment of money on the happening of
a specified event other than a breach of contractual duty owed by the contemplated payer to the
contemplated payee."
Further, it would be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre-estimation
of loss. Such a limitation arises only in respect of penalty clauses, not in respect of the contractually
agreed consideration for performance of an obligation. We again refer you to the recent Judgment
of ParkingEye v Beavis, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal's Judgment
it is stated that a parking charge should be equated to a disincentive for drivers, not a penalty, as the
charges are not so grossly unreasonable as to be unenforceable at common law. Moreover, it is
stated that it would be correct to interpret Parliament's intention on passing section 56 Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as:
"...being in the public interest that parking charges of the kind now under consideration should be
recoverable, provided that they had been brought clearly to the attention of the motorist at the time
he made use of the car park."
Please note that in the recent Judgment of Civil Enforcement Limited v Ferris, the claim was decided
in Civil Enforcement's favour, and it was decided by the Judge that:
"irrespective of the basis of the charge, contract or penalty, Civil Enforcement Limited are
completely within their rights to charge to amount set."

Due to the above facts we believe the appeal should be refused, however we welcome the appeal
being stayed until the decision of the Supreme Court is handed down.

innocentdriving

here is the landowner contract
onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=F5018AE7BCFBDD69!6694&authkey=!ANPucNkpi0SOJUM&ithint=file%2cpdf

innocentdriving

the appeal that was sent to POPLA:



1. No landowner contract assigning rights to Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to enforce contracts
with drivers




Under the BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator
to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with
drivers. I require Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner
as I believe it is not compliant with the BPA AOS Code of Practice and that it is the same flawed business
agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam. If Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. produce a 'witness
statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have
been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual
irregularities. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract
itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing
sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.



The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that the Operator
does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to
make contracts with drivers. I therefore require the Operator to supply a copy of the current contract
with the landowner (and if their contract is with another agent, who do not own the land, then I put
Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. to strict proof of their rights to form contracts having been authorised
from the landowner).








2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers nor with registered
keepers




Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. do not own the land mentioned in the Notice to Keeper and have not
provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if
a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against operators
which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on
visiting drivers. Furthermore, I require that the Operator demonstrate that they have the right to
pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own
right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that this
Operator can 'issue PCNs’. Any person or organisation can issue a PCN on a windscreen but it would not
automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need
to see the contract itself, not a witness statement nor a site agreement sheet.
In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013 District Judge
Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7,
where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where it states there is no
agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the
grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and
didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land. This
decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court
14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred
completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to
bring the claim in their own name. My case is the same.



3. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish 'keeper liability' under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012




The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at
00:45 on the day. The period of parking is required by Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4
Paragraphs 8.2a and 8.2b.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the Notice to Keeper is a fundamental document in
establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a
compliant Notice to Keeper are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in
the Notice to Keeper wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. There is no case against the keeper. I
expect POPLA will see the significance of an operator trying to pursue a keeper, in a case where no
keeper liability can be established by virtue of the operator's non-conformance to the legislation.


4. No contract formed by the signage



I submit that the signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. A
lack of signs at the entrance to a car park, and unclear wording creates no contract. The sign which has
tiny font makes it illegible. The sign is not prominent and not reflective. I put Norfolk Parking
Enforcement Ltd. to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos. A Notice is not
imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it
and agreed terms. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. signs in this car park are sparse and unclear, to the
extent that they are incapable of forming a contract even if the driver had seen and agreed to the terms,


which is not the case. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to
the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, such as when
the driver walks away and past a sign, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance
Signs) Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. has no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye
level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. There was no contract formed by the signage.



5. Inadequate and non-compliant signage




BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 paragraph 18.7 in regards to Signs, states that if "a telephone
line is provided to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals from motorists relating to the terms
and conditions of parking they have entered into, these calls must not be charged above the basic rate."
This is in line with current legislation, covered in "The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation
and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013" PART 4 Paragraph 41 states that "a telephone line for the
purpose of consumers contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts entered into with the
trader, a consumer contacting the trader must not be bound to pay more than the basic rate.". Signs at
the site "The Plantation Hotel, Earlham Road, Norwich" used by Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd.
provide a telephone line for this purpose which is "0844 848 2572". The current call charge from a
standard BT landline for this number is 7p per minute plus an access charge of 18p. Norfolk Parking
Enforcement Ltd. are not providing a telephone number where calls are charged at the basic rate as
required by the BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 and required by "The Consumer Contracts
(Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013". The signage is inadequate and
non-compliant to the BPA Code of Practice and current legislation covered in The Consumer Contracts
(Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations.



6. The 'arrangements' included in the Notice to Keeper, under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
which disputes or complaints are referred to independent adjudication are non-compliant




The Notice to Keeper included arrangements for which disputes or complaints are referred by the
Keeper for independent adjudication, covered within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4
Paragraph 8.2g and 8.4b. The arrangements included in the Notice to Keeper are for POPLA, who are
only able to consider appeals for parking charge notices issued by a member of the Approved Operator
Scheme (AOS) administered by the British Parking Association (BPA). As Norfolk Parking Enforcement
Ltd. have not kept to the conditions of the BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5, the BPA
membership of Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. is invalid as detailed in the BPA Code of Practice Oct 14
Version 5 Paragraph 4.2 "To stay a member of the BPA you must keep to the conditions of the Code.".
Conditions not kept to in the code are including but not exclusively the following:

. BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 paragraph 22.8 in regards to Operator Procedures
states that the operator "must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving
it". The Notice to Keeper included the email address that was used to send a letter of appeal to
the operator on

---

and the reply from the operator was not received until 18 days
later on

---

. 18 days exceeds the condition of "within 14 days".
. BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 paragraph 20.14 in regards to Notice to Keepers
states that when a Notice to Keeper is served it must "include information telling the keeper the
‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details". The Notice to Keeper issued
does not include any information regarding the cause for Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd.
asking the DVLA for the Keeper's details. This omission of 'reasonable cause' for asking the DVLA
for details is a breach of the conditions. The DVLA require car park management companies to
be members of either the British Parking Association or Independent Parking Committee.



Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. are only a member of the British Parking Association and have
not kept to the conditions of the BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5, therefore the
request for Keeper details from the DVLA under the "Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing)
Regulations 2002" Section 27 is not for a reasonable cause and is a breach of the "Data
Protection Act 1998".
. BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 paragraph 20.5a in regards to Photographs states
that photographs used for evidence "must not be retouched or digitally altered". The letter
dated --- to the Registered Keeper in response to the appeal of the Parking Charge
Notice includes a photograph as evidence of signage. This photograph has digital alterations
with the intention of proving the conformance of signage on the issue date of the Parking
Charge Notice. This is a breach of the conditions of the BPA Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5.




7. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss




The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no
relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge
notice not been issued.



The amount of £100 demanded in the Notice to Keeper is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is
unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot
include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The cost
of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses as found by prior court rulings
and previous POPLA adjudications. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. has provided no breakdown of how
the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite being
requested to do so. As Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of
loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly
represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this
charge unenforceable. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that ''a parking charge is not
automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to
state a loss where none exists''.
The BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 Paragraph 19.5 states "if the parking charge that the
driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be
proportionate and commercially justifiable." The Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms' and as such,
the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the
parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking
revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at the nearby shops and cafes if another vehicle was prevented
from parking. However, this is not the case because the vehicle was left in the car park with the
permission of the occupier and the car park had more than 90% of the spaces available. This Operator
cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses
flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss
directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure
to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it,
costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the alleged
breach.
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has
no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The charge is punitive and


therefore an unenforceable penalty. BPA AOS Code of Practice Oct 14 Version 5 paragraph 19.6 in
regards to Charges, states that if a parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, "that
charge should not be punitive or unreasonable". This is also covered by legislation under the "Unfair
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" Paragraph 8.1 that states "An unfair term in a contract
concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer." where the
unfair term, covered in Schedule 2 Paragraph 1e states, "Terms which have the object or effect of (e)
requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation." The current cost of an equivalent Penalty Charge Notice issued by Norwich City Council
is £50 or £70, depending on the seriousness of the contravention. The Parking Charge Notice issued by
Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. is a value greater than the higher amount charged by the local
authority for a Penalty Charge Notice which is intended to be punitive. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd.
reduce the charge by 40% if paid within 14 days, this is a greater charge than the punitive Penalty
Charge Notice issued by Norwich City Council which is reduced by half if the payment is made within a
14 day period. Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. have a charge which is both punitive and unreasonable
as it is above the local authority's highest seriousness of contravention, punitive charge. The contract is
also unfair under the legislation for "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999" Schedule 2
Paragraph 1e and the contract is therefore not binding on the consumer as stated in Paragraph 8.1 of
the same legislation. Given that Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. charges the same lump sum for
alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the
contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this
charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a
penalty.


Norfolk Parking Enforcement Ltd. have no financial interest in this private residential car park, and there
is no commercial justification for this charge. In this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to
pursue.
Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were
significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its
business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being
diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the
claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be
established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss –
administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too
cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts
spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows
that the claims must be dismissed’’
POPLA Senior Assessor Chris Adamson has summed up many decisions thus:
''the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in
the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have
been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the
initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what
constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an
accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages
must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It
is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome
of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon
which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform the Operator to cancel the parking charge.

innocentdriving

and finally, the link to the ntk. any advice welcomed. many thanks in advance!

onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=F5018AE7BCFBDD69!6698&authkey=!APIWWLBu4ofA3-o&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

innocentdriving

hi all, did anybody have any advice on the response I drafted? I could also do with a pointer on how to respond to the landowner letter and GPEoL response. Many thanks in advance

DCodd

Just went through the booking process online and the T's & C's that I was asked to agree to had no such conditions within them.

Policies

Children Policy: Children welcome
Smoking Policy: No smoking
Pet Policy: No pets


Booking Terms

Bookings are non-refundable.Conditions of Use: Check In is from 16:00 PM and Check Out is by 10:00 AM. Key-codes for entry to accommodation will be emailed or text if you contact MJB on the day of arrival.We are a no smoking accommodation. We cannot accept pets.FULL PAYMENT IS REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF BOOKING, THIS IS NON REFUNDABLE & NON TRANSFERABLE. IF CARD DETAILS DECLINE THEN MJB WILL CANCEL YOUR BOOKING & NOTIFY YOU BY EMAIL. Please leave the apartment as you found it. The card provided with this booking will be fined accordingly for any misuse. All complaints will only be activated if we receive an email from the guest upon their initial arrival. At which point we can then resolve the issue. Key codes can ONLY be given via email.Booking Terms: FULL PAYMENT IS REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF BOOKING, THIS IS NON REFUNDABLE & NON TRANSFERABLE. IF CARD DETAILS DECLINE THEN MJB WILL CANCEL YOUR BOOKING & NOTIFY YOU BY EMAIL. Please leave the apartment as you found it. The card provided with this booking will be fined accordingly for any misuse. All complaints will only be activated if we receive an email from the guest upon their initial arrival. At which point we can then resolve the issue. Key codes can ONLY be given via email.
Accessibility information

Number Of Floors:2

Unless anyone else can find them elsewhere, I think these are the T's&C's you agreed to, the ones you have posted on here seem to be attached to your "non-refundable" booking confirmation.

Your contract also seems to be with MJB not Norfolk Parking but other regular and more knowledgable posters should advise.

innocentdriving

thanks dcodd. I agree that the whole situation is very unfair but I want to cover every base to ensure that it is all sorted at POPLA. I am still keen to know if anybody could advise on how to rebute the landowner contract. many thanks.

innocentdriving

I'm hoping to send the response in the next couple of days. I was hoping to get some advice from the gurus on this, especially on the landowner contract if possible. many thanks