IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Draft letter to POPLA
Options
Lou30
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi there
I have completed my first draft of my appeal letter to POPLA, if anyone could have a read through and offer me any advice or advice on any amendments I need to make, I have copied and pasted from some other appeals I have found from various websites, but I have tried to include my own words where possible! I would be very grateful for any help
Dear Popla
Appeal Re: Highview parking PCN number *****POPLA code ***** Carpark Waterfields Retail Park VEHICLE REG ******
On the 15.09.2013, Highview issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in Waterfields Car Park for 3 hour 29 minutes.
This appeal is on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge, and the 'parking charge' exceeds the appropriate amount.
My Appeal:
NO GENUINE PRE ESTIMATE OF LOSS
. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Highview Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Highview Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss.
Section 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012 states :
(a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b) those charges have not been paid in full.
Waterields is a free car park, therefore the parking charges have been paid in full and there is no loss to the owner.
Highway sent me the following in response to my first appeal to them: The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.
I require Highview parking to submit a full breakdown of their losses due to the alleged parking allegation, and this cannot include any of the above or the POPLA fee .These are not actual losses following the alleged breach, these are business running costs.
NOTICE TO KEEPER NON COMPLAINT
1. Via ANPR the notice has to be delivered within 14 days as per the requirements of Schedule 4 PoFA . Highview have failed to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Act in that the Notice to Keeper was not sent to me within the “relevant period”. Paragraph 9(4) indicates that the Notice to Keeper must be given to the registered keeper not more than 14 days after the car allegedly infringed the car park terms and conditions.
The alleged infringement occurred on the 15/09/13 and no ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued at the time. The Notice to Keeper is dated 30/09/2013 which is 15 days after the event and too late to ensure delivery within the statutory 14 days prescribed by PoFA.
Therefore there can be no keeper liability & as a result I request that Highview provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.
2. The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. These they have failed to do and thus have have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper. In this case Keeper liability has been lost due to the NTK being issued late.
INSUFFICIENT DETAIL OF CONTRAVENTION
The postal parking charge notice fails to clarify what the contravention is and so it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The NTK states the recorded duration of the stay and advises that the vehicle was in violation of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage but is not specific to what the contravention is.
CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier .
ANPR REQUIREMENTS- PART 21 OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
The BPA code of practice contains the following:
21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
• 21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.
• 21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you
should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
• 21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your
car parks in good working order. You need to make sure
the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and
cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use
to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our
compliance team or our agents.
• 21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information
Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and
ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.
• 21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability
provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have
not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the
driver in the car park where the parking event took
place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict
requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule
(in particular paragraph 9).
I have had no evidence that Highview have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.
I have completed my first draft of my appeal letter to POPLA, if anyone could have a read through and offer me any advice or advice on any amendments I need to make, I have copied and pasted from some other appeals I have found from various websites, but I have tried to include my own words where possible! I would be very grateful for any help
Dear Popla
Appeal Re: Highview parking PCN number *****POPLA code ***** Carpark Waterfields Retail Park VEHICLE REG ******
On the 15.09.2013, Highview issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in Waterfields Car Park for 3 hour 29 minutes.
This appeal is on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge, and the 'parking charge' exceeds the appropriate amount.
My Appeal:
NO GENUINE PRE ESTIMATE OF LOSS
. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Highview Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Highview Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss.
Section 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012 states :
(a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b) those charges have not been paid in full.
Waterields is a free car park, therefore the parking charges have been paid in full and there is no loss to the owner.
Highway sent me the following in response to my first appeal to them: The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.
I require Highview parking to submit a full breakdown of their losses due to the alleged parking allegation, and this cannot include any of the above or the POPLA fee .These are not actual losses following the alleged breach, these are business running costs.
NOTICE TO KEEPER NON COMPLAINT
1. Via ANPR the notice has to be delivered within 14 days as per the requirements of Schedule 4 PoFA . Highview have failed to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Act in that the Notice to Keeper was not sent to me within the “relevant period”. Paragraph 9(4) indicates that the Notice to Keeper must be given to the registered keeper not more than 14 days after the car allegedly infringed the car park terms and conditions.
The alleged infringement occurred on the 15/09/13 and no ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued at the time. The Notice to Keeper is dated 30/09/2013 which is 15 days after the event and too late to ensure delivery within the statutory 14 days prescribed by PoFA.
Therefore there can be no keeper liability & as a result I request that Highview provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.
2. The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. These they have failed to do and thus have have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper. In this case Keeper liability has been lost due to the NTK being issued late.
INSUFFICIENT DETAIL OF CONTRAVENTION
The postal parking charge notice fails to clarify what the contravention is and so it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The NTK states the recorded duration of the stay and advises that the vehicle was in violation of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage but is not specific to what the contravention is.
CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier .
ANPR REQUIREMENTS- PART 21 OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
The BPA code of practice contains the following:
21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
• 21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.
• 21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you
should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
• 21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your
car parks in good working order. You need to make sure
the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and
cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use
to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our
compliance team or our agents.
• 21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information
Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and
ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.
• 21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability
provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have
not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the
driver in the car park where the parking event took
place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict
requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule
(in particular paragraph 9).
I have had no evidence that Highview have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.
0
Comments
-
I would change the 'No GPEOL' paragraph a bit as some parts are not quite right:
NO GENUINE PRE ESTIMATE OF LOSS
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Highview Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Highview Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss.
[STRIKE]Section 4 of the Protection of Freedom act 2012 states :
(a) the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b) those charges have not been paid in full.[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]Waterields is a free car park, therefore the parking charges have been paid in full and there is no loss to the owner.[/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]Highway[/STRIKE] Highview sent me the following in response to my first appeal to them: The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.
I require Highview parking to submit a full breakdown of their losses due to the alleged parking allegation, and this cannot include any of the above or the POPLA fee .These are not actual losses following the alleged breach, these are business running costs.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.
And the two paragraphs 'NOTICE TO KEEPER NON COMPLIANT' and 'INSUFFICIENT DETAIL OF CONTRAVENTION' I would make into one paragraph about non-compliance of the NTK:
NOTICE TO KEEPER NON COMPLIANT - BREACH OF POFA 2012
1. Via ANPR the notice has to be delivered within 14 days as per the requirements of Schedule 4 PoFA . Highview have failed to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Act in that the Notice to Keeper was not sent to me within the “relevant period”. Paragraph 9(4) indicates that the Notice to Keeper must be given to the registered keeper not more than 14 days after the car allegedly infringed the car park terms and conditions.
The alleged infringement occurred on the 15/09/13 and no ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued at the time. The Notice to Keeper is dated 30/09/2013 which is 15 days after the event and too late to ensure delivery within the statutory 14 days prescribed by PoFA. Therefore there can be no keeper liability [STRIKE]& as a result I request that Highview provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.[/STRIKE] and the driver has not been identified, so there is no case to answer and POPLA must uphold this appeal.
In addition, there is further non-compliance with the wording of the Notice to Keeper. It is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. These they have failed to do and thus have have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.
In this case Keeper liability has been lost due to the NTK being issued late and it [STRIKE]The postal parking charge notice[/STRIKE] fails to clarify what the contravention is, nor who the creditor is, and so it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. [STRIKE]The NTK states the recorded duration of the stay and advises that the vehicle was in violation of the terms and conditions displayed on the signage but is not specific to what the contravention is.[/STRIKE]
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability under Paragraph 9 it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.
Finally, this bit need a little extra added:
CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier which, to be compliant with the BPA code of Practice, must grant Highview authority to form contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own right in the courts. I believe Highview only have an agency agreement with the landowner which does not meet the standards in the BPA CoP. PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you so much for your help! I found it a very tricky letter to write because it needs to be so specific! The whole system is madness but its so helpful to have people like you on this forum giving advice and helping with these letters.
I will let you know my result
Thank you so much:)0 -
Don't forget to click the
button on posts that have been helpful. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards