POPLA have now made their decision, below is the email that I received from them.
Does this mean that it is now finished with?
PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN
0845 207 7700
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London Councils
Calls to Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded
29 November 2013
Reference ********** always quote in any communication with POPLA
**** ***** ***** (Appellant)
ANPR Limited (Operator)
The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******* arising out of the presence at Street, Town, on Date,
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.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, given that the Appellant parked on site in a clear contravention of the terms
and conditions for parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that, amongst other things, the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge appears to be a sum sought for liquidated damages, in other words, compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge
must represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss any breach may cause. The Appellant has requested that the Operator show a loss of income. The
estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail
revenue at a shopping centre.
The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss as their signs provide a 100% deterrent rate and failure to provide this deterrent
amounts to a breach of contract between themselves and the landowner, enabling them to seek liquidated damages from the driver/keeper of the
vehicle that caused the breach.
Having studied the Operator’s submissions, I cannot, on what little information is provided, decide that they have shown that the charge does in fact
represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
I must allow the appeal on this ground.
I need not decide on any other issues.