RESULT! Both appeals just came through successful! G24 clarified in their case that it was indeed "damages for breach of contract". The winning grounds were "no pre-estimate of loss". The Assessor states that "the Operator has not produced any evidence to justify this parking charge". There was no comment on all the other grounds. The main part of the letter is attached. Thanks again to all those who helped with this. I'm making a £20 donation to CAG.

One further thought. I wonder whether there is any possibility of the charge notice being declared invalid on the grounds that it does not make it clear that it is either a contractual charge or a claim for damages? The notice clearly contains elements of both (as many notices do, apparently) and - arguably - POPLA cannot adjudicate on its validity if they don't know what is being demanded by the Operator? At the very least, if my appeal requested absolute clarification from the Operator as to which it is, that may put a spanner in the works? Any thoughts, anyone?

Thanks, both. Yes, my considered opinion is that I favour the "kitchen sink" approach. Mainly because, omitting the argument about contractual terms will not prevent POPLA from deciding that it is a contractual charge if that is how they choose see it. If that happens, then I am left without a response. I think it is fair to say in my appeal to POPLA "Look - this notice is a mess. As Joe Public, I am not sufficiently expert to decide what it is so I am offering a defence against either interpretation. You (POPLA) decide in your wisdom and then consider the relevant argument that I have offered". I think that's fair.

I can see the logic but I'd be interested in views from other Caggers on this point about ommiting the "contractual charge" arguments. I find it difficult to dispense with an apparently strong line of argument about "unfair charges etc". I guess the right thing to do depends on what recent experience with POPLA indicates - and I have none!

Thanks for this. Interesting. Presumably the other grounds (which are unrelated to the damages/contract distinction point) should stay in? (Proof of entitlement to claim; Parking without permission; and Planning conditions). I've attached the latest draft which explains these.

This does seem to be an escape clause but, unfortunately, I didn't buy anything on the 2 occasions in question.

I've woven the point in about "breach" meaning it must be a claim for damages but I'm not sure I understand the point about VAT?

OK - Done.

Done - File replaced. Sorry!

Letter from G24 refusing appeal attached. The remaining pages are the appeal form from POPLA.

Hi, G24 were pretty quick in rejecting my appeal (as predicted). I've drafted the attached for POPLA. I'd be delighted if [ATTACH=CONFIG]49443[/ATTACH]anyone wants to take a look at it and offer any pointers.

First NTK [re-]attached now. The payment slip was destroyed along with the cheque that I nearly posted. Thanks for looking at this.

First NTK re-attached in next post

Intriguing stuff! I'm having trouble getting my head around this "parking without permission" point. Are we saying that, if I have accepted the terms, I have "permission" to park and, if I have not accepted the terms, I do not have "permission" to park and, having not accepted the terms, there can be no contract? In that case, the notice is saying that I agree to the vehicle owner being issued with a parking charge notice but are we saying that that notice is not backed up by any contract because the contract in the site notice is about parking "with permission" rather than "without permission". If anyone can unravel this, I'd be quite fascinated! Incidentally, do the various dodgy conditions in the notice (£2.50 additional charge, £60 additional charge) actually make the whole "contract" unenforceable? If so, is that by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms legislation?

That's excellent advice. Will do. Thank yous! Needless to say, I'll be posting updates.