Parking Eye charge at Kingston Park, Newcastle

There is also the exception where the land is owned by the PPC, such as NCP and de Savary (e.g. Willen Lake Milton Keynes, Nigel, near to where it all began for you !!)

Guys_Dad wrote: »

There is also the exception where the land is owned by the PPC, such as NCP and de Savary (e.g. Willen Lake Milton Keynes, Nigel, near to where it all began for you !!)

In those far off innocent days before I was even aware of the The Great PPC Swindle.

I believe that Vinci also own some of their own car parks.

Even if there were a contract & the landowner was prepared to sue you there would still be the obstacle that parking charges of £60 or £100 or whatever are clearly penalties designed to deter & not genuine pre-estimates of loss. I keep trotting out this analogy but if I stay in a hotel that costs £50/night & don't check out on time the most they could charge me is £50 for another night not £1000 even if there was a sign up in reception saying that they could.

Hovite wrote: »

Not strictly true - the £2.50 fee from DVLA and the cost of the letters would count BUT it would never add up to what they currently ask for !

But they can't legitimately claim costs incurred pursuing a non-existent debt! Shades of 1984 double-think! Wibble!

gwarpig wrote: »

I have now received a POPLA reference and a response from PE saying my appeal has been rejected, even though I was challenging, not appealing.

They've included some nonsense about their charges not being disproportionate - they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss because they have to put up signs, maintain their ANPR system and pay staff and overhead costs. I thought the for the losses to be legitimate they had to have been borne by the landowner?

Anyroadup, would someone please be able to help me with the appeal to POPLA?

Start from picking the relevant parts from this excellent one from Coupon-Mad


Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re ticket number xxxxxxx POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx

I have researched the matter and would like to point out the following:



UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position, bright colours, distracting pictograms and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. At no point was I sufficiently informed by any signs that I had to input my entire car registration number in this car park as this is not the norm locally. Neither was the wording on the P&D machines clear in this regard, or I would not have entered just the numbers.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Excel are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into the car park. I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs and machines in that car park (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
Excel do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, Excel have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012).

I would require POPLA to please check whether Excel have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER AND UNFAIR TERMS
There is no contract between Excel and myself but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

Unfair Terms
5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

Clearly it is patently unfair for a firm to state in a published article that they have a set procedure including manual checks - because they understand a driver can make a mistake with car registration input - and yet they failed to carry out those simple checks in my case. This would seem to me to be a clear breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Excel are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice as they suggest my emergency constituted a breach of contract. As such, they must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

I would ask the adjudicator's confirmation that the following items should not be included in the pre-estimate of loss as these are costs of running the business

Since I paid and displayed and no damage was caused, there can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Excel lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.


ANPR SECTION OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
I further contend that Excel have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .



On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with the CPUTR 2008, the UTCCR 1999, the Equality Act 2010 and basic contract law.

It is unfair and punitive and, as such, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.




Signed:

Dated

Now, you will need to use the bits that apply to your situation. Do not cut and paste the lot without reading what you are going to use.

Also, wait for some additional help and good luck.