Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

  • CloughaSW
    Vs. G24, no GPEoL.

    The standard reply... Thanks all.

    "The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal but it is only necessary for the purposes of this appeal to deal with one. This is the submission that the parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    "Where such a submission is made, there is a burden on the Operator, and not the driver, to provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss which details how they calculated the parking charge amount. It does not need to be particularly detailed or amount to exactly the charge amount because it is simply an estimate. However, one must be provided.

    "The Operator has not provided any evidence which establishes the charge reflects a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They simply state that their charge amounts to liquidated damages and is in accordance with the recommendations of the BPA. This is not sufficient to discharge their burden and so I cannot find that the charge is justified in this case. Therefore, I find that the charge is unenforceable and the Appellant is not liable to pay it.

    "Accordingly, I allow the appeal.

    "Ricky Powell

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,096Posts Today

8,735Users online

Martin's Twitter