Tweet
Today I received a notice from POPLA to say that my parking fine had been overturned thanks to the template provided by 'Mystery 1' on this site http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter and I wanted to send my huge thanks. I obviously adjusted the template for name of company and a few other bits but sent it to the letter apart from that. Below I include the reason they over turned it and I hope it helps others in the future as it has helped me. I will be actively trying to help anyone that needs it for free in return for your wonderful help here.
They really dug their nails in trying to get me to pay and many emails were exchanged but I kept bringing them back to the points in the template and eventually won.
Thanks again, you do a great thing against these crooks. (Who tried to charge me in excess of £100!)
Keri
Email confirmation...
24 October 2014
Reference ************
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Mr. *********Appellant)
-v-
Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number *********** arising out of the presence at Cooperative Car Park, ***********, on 3 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark***********
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.
************** 2 24 October 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit that the Appellant breached the Terms by parking for in excess of two hours and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge.
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. It simply lists the various heads of loss it expects to incur and does not provide any figures which demonstrate how the parking charge was calculated. This is not sufficient to discharge its burden and therefore 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
Assessor
They really dug their nails in trying to get me to pay and many emails were exchanged but I kept bringing them back to the points in the template and eventually won.
Thanks again, you do a great thing against these crooks. (Who tried to charge me in excess of £100!)
Keri
Email confirmation...
24 October 2014
Reference ************
always quote in any communication with POPLA
Mr. *********Appellant)
-v-
Civil Enforcement Limited also t/as Starpark & Creative Car Park & Parksolve & Versatile Parking (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number *********** arising out of the presence at Cooperative Car Park, ***********, on 3 July 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark***********
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.
************** 2 24 October 2014
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that their Terms and Conditions of parking are clearly displayed throughout the above named site. They submit that the Appellant breached the Terms by parking for in excess of two hours and therefore is liable to pay the parking charge.
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. It simply lists the various heads of loss it expects to incur and does not provide any figures which demonstrate how the parking charge was calculated. This is not sufficient to discharge its burden and therefore 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
Assessor
Comment