Robin Hood, Win v VCS |
Robin Hood, Win v VCS |
Sat, 7 Dec 2013 - 13:47
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,091 Joined: 9 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,066 |
Just seen on MSE and thought it might come in handy for someone.
(Appellant) -v- Vehicle Control Services Limited (Operator) The Operator issued parking charge notice number arising out of the presence at Robin Hood Airport Approach Roads (Doncaster), 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 The Appellant’s vehicle was observed at the Robin Hood Airport Approach Roads (Doncaster). The Operator’s case is that the Appellant breached the parking conditions by stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. The Appellant made representations stating his case. The Appellant raised a number of points and one of the points was that the charge exceeded the appropriate amount. The Appellant states that only the landowner has the right to reimbursement for any financial loss or compensation. The Appellant submits that the Operator has suffered no 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 submit a full breakdown of their charges to show their pre-estimate of loss calculation. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. The Operator submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate as they incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The Operator gave examples of such costs which include a write-off allowance. The Operator has produced a list of costs; however, a substantial proportion of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellant’s breach. The aim of damages for breach of contract is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Accordingly, the Operator cannot include in its pre-estimate of loss costs which are not in fact contractual losses, but the costs of running its business and which would have been incurred irrespective of the Appellant’s conduct. Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I need not decide any other issues. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal. Sakib Chowdhury Assessor |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 7 Dec 2013 - 13:47
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 - 06:26
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Nice......
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 22:23 |