Appeal Win Against Euro Parking Services (HHJ Brownhill at Winchester County Court )

ChirpyChicken

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jacksonyamba_i-am-pleased-to-announce-a-significant-victory-activity-7290052806160363520-veAA?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

I am pleased to announce a significant victory in a parking appeal heard today (28 January 2025) before Her Honour Judge Brownhill at Winchester County Court. As the Appellant's representative, I successfully challenged Euro Parking Services Ltd's parking charge on multiple grounds, setting an important persuasive precedent for future parking disputes.

The dispute arose when Euro Parking Services Ltd issued a £100 parking charge at The Climbing Academy on March 18, 2023. The vehicle was present for only 19 minutes, and the £1.40 parking fee was paid shortly after leaving the site. The case progressed to Swindon County Court, where District Judge Hatvani initially found in favour of the parking operator.

Permission to appeal was granted by HHJ Brownhill on December 6, 2023, on three grounds, with a stay of execution ordered pending the appeal hearing. The judge found real prospects of success on grounds 1, 2, and 4.

Successful Grounds of Appeal

Ground 1: No Loss Suffered
The appeal successfully argued that the District Judge erred in finding that the operator had suffered a loss. This ground is particularly significant as it clarifies that parking operators must demonstrate actual loss, especially in cases where:
- The parking fee was paid
- The vehicle remained within the permitted time limit

Ground 2: Ambiguous Terms
The court accepted that the terms relied upon by Euro Parking Services were ambiguous and had not been properly pleaded in their statement of case. This ground reinforces the requirement for parking operators to:
- Clearly specify terms in their statement of case
- Ensure terms are unambiguous
- Present clear evidence of contractual formation

Ground 4: POFA Non-Compliance

The most significant ground concerned the operator's failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Notice to Keeper incorrectly stated the commencement of the 28-day statutory period. This ruling will have far-reaching implications for parking operators such as Excel Parking Services and Vehicle Control Services Limited, who often:
- Miscalculate the statutory period
- Fail to account for postal service days
- Issue notices with incorrect timelines  (etc must pay within 28 days)

Implications
This decision provides crucial guidance on several key issues:
1. The requirement to prove actual loss in parking enforcement
2. The importance of clear and unambiguous terms
3. Strict compliance with POFA requirements

The judgment will significantly impact how parking operators like must conduct their operations, particularly regarding notice requirements and the calculation of statutory periods.

This victory demonstrates that with proper legal representation, unfair parking charges can be successfully challenged when operators fail to follow proper procedures or rely on ambiguous terms.

LDast

Let's hope the transcript is made available soon. Good old Jackson.

Umkomaas

I am pleased to announce a significant victory in a parking appeal heard today (28 January 2024) before Her Honour Judge Brownhill at Winchester County Court.

He's got the wrong year here. Must be 2025.

Coupon-mad

That's great news!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST AT APPEAL!

They've been Gladstoned!

Car1980

Excellent. Glad to see more and more judges cottoning on to the fact that Beavis does not simply eliminate the loss argument.