Result: Won 
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 25 August 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay despite signage at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so.
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 parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included “Site based” costs. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. The operator has stated, “The site-based costs include (but are not limited to) the cost of producing the charge itself with accompanying weatherproof wallet, which directly relates to the breach.” However, I find that the operator has failed to show how a sum of £36.21 has been calculated on these items alone. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 25 August 2014, the appellant was issued with a parking charge notice for breaching the terms and conditions of the parking site.
It is the operator’s case that the appellant’s vehicle was parked outside of a marked bay despite signage at the site to indicate that this was necessary to do so.
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 parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
In order to justify that the amount is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the appellant’s breach. Amongst other things, the operator has included “Site based” costs. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. The operator has stated, “The site-based costs include (but are not limited to) the cost of producing the charge itself with accompanying weatherproof wallet, which directly relates to the breach.” However, I find that the operator has failed to show how a sum of £36.21 has been calculated on these items alone. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
