POPLA Decisions

decision has just been received... success!
YAY for everyone here

me vs. JAS Parking Solutions, Staples car park.

secretmachines (Appellant)
-vJAS
Parking Solutions (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number XXX arising out of the presence at Staples XXX, on XX March 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark XXX.

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.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It does not appear to be in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on the site and that the operator’s employee concluded that the driver left the site without using the store on site. They therefore issued a parking charge notice.

The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine pre-estimate of loss issue, the operator stated that the charge represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided supporting statements.

Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once such a loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a loss that is not the case. I find that the appellant’s statement about losses stemming from unauthorised parking does not show an initial loss, as no basis for the calculations is provided. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow from a breach, an initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of them. As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the charge notice is invalid. Having found this, I am not required to consider any further issues raised by the appellant.

Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Great - as always, MET don't even bother to contest our appeals!

My (2nd!!) notice cancelled this time Excel@Iceland car park :j

Followed newbies guide, made amendments & got lots of feedback/guidance here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5095642&highlight=



The Operator’s case is that the terms of parking state that the car park is 24
hour pay and display car park. They say that the Appellant’s vehicle was
observed parked after the expiry of time and they enclosed supportive
evidence including a genuine pre-estimate report to support their
submissions.
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 amount of the parking charge notice does not represent a genuine
pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the notice
of rejection they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park
conditions had occurred by parking after the expiry of time. They have
submitted a breakdown of the losses they incur as a result of the Appellant’s
breach. Amongst other things, the Operator has included costs such as the
debt recovery process and final reminder process costs which do not amount
to a genuine pre – estimate of loss as the Operator has not incurred this loss as
a result of the Appellant’s breach. I am not minded to accept the debt
recovery process as part of the justification as not all parking charge notices
will go to the debt recovery process stage. I also find that the Operator
cannot claim the “2nd Stage Process” to be a separate heading of losses
incurred as a result of the Appellant’s breach. This is because the procedure
of dealing with an appeal is not structured in a way so that the Appellant can
re-appeal to the Operator. Therefore I find that it is not reasonable for the
Operator to pre-estimate this as a loss. I find that the list submitted by the
Operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a result of the
Appellant’s breach. This is because It appears that a substantial portion of the
costs refer to the debt recovery process and the “2nd Stage Process”.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages and damages sought on this
particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate of loss.

Accordingly, I allow this appeal.
Aurela Qerimi
Assessor

tazstar wrote: »

Hi this is the first time ive posted on this site and i apologise if i have done this wrong!!

I got issued a £60 parking fine last night from Norfolk Parking Enforcement for unauthorised parking i think i was literally minutes over a 2 hour free car parking!! My car was the only one in the car park.

I have read previous replies and threads but cant see one similar to mine, as they read about permits or over white lines.

Im looking for a draft letter to appeal within 14 days or my fine goes to £100. I have been online to view my fine and there is 3 photos of my car at 7.10 but nothing stating or showing time of arrival??

Thanks in advance

Cindy

You really need to start your own thread. This one is for POPLA decisions. And it's not a "fine".