Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    b1rdie
    PCN from PPS Hull Dock
    • #1
    • 10th Apr 14, 7:01 PM
    PCN from PPS Hull Dock 10th Apr 14 at 7:01 PM
    Received a PCN stating that I had no valid ticket or permit displayed. the tickets come in two parts and one was clearly displayed with full details but the other had blown onto the floor. There are no adhesive backings to these tickets so I can imagine this is regular occurrence. I appealed and have been knocked back stating' parking at site is for vehicles parked in accordance with site instructions as detailed on signage. signage is clear, in excess of industry standards and clearly details any charges that may be imposed should these restrictions be contravened. The amount sought as the parking charge notice is a term of contact. The provided photos as well. I have a form to complete with a verification code but need some advice on how to draft the letter. I have seen some great templates on here but they don't seem to fit mine. I have all the proof that I have paid and the ticket that the attendant photographed clearly displays the time, date and amount that I paid but they are saying that both tickets need to be displayed. I have been given a date to pay £50 or £100. Please could someone help with a template that I can use to appeal
    Many thanks for any help
Page 1
  • b1rdie
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 14, 7:06 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Apr 14, 7:06 PM
    Received a PCN stating that I had no valid ticket or permit displayed. the tickets come in two parts and one was clearly displayed with full details but the other had blown onto the floor. There are no adhesive backings to these tickets so I can imagine this is regular occurrence. I appealed and have been knocked back stating' parking at site is for vehicles parked in accordance with site instructions as detailed on signage. signage is clear, in excess of industry standards and clearly details any charges that may be imposed should these restrictions be contravened. The amount sought as the parking charge notice is a term of contact. The provided photos as well. I have a form to complete with a verification code but need some advice on how to draft the letter. I have seen some great templates on here but they don't seem to fit mine. I have all the proof that I have paid and the ticket that the attendant photographed clearly displays the time, date and amount that I paid but they are saying that both tickets need to be displayed. I have been given a date to pay £50 or £100. Please could someone help with a template that I can use to appeal
    Many thanks for any help
    Originally posted by b1rdie
    The form I have to complete is to POPLA
  • JesterA1
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 14, 7:10 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Apr 14, 7:10 PM
    Check the Thread Newbies and give it a read, you will find everything you need to do there including past cases which will have the full appeal process.

    Here is the link http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

    once you have put a draft letter together then put it on here to be checked over.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Apr 14, 7:22 PM
    • 12,747 Posts
    • 15,327 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 14, 7:22 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Apr 14, 7:22 PM
    so OP

    clearly you didnt try the search function and the search keyword HULL did you ?

    if you had, you would have found several threads about them

    like this one http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4919472

    this one http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4865017

    this one http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4854037

    and this one http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4559437

    you will find exact popla appeals in them, for exactly your circumstances
    Last edited by Redx; 10-04-2014 at 7:32 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
  • b1rdie
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 14, 8:33 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Apr 14, 8:33 PM
    Check the Thread Newbies and give it a read, you will find everything you need to do there including past cases which will have the full appeal process.

    Here is the link http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

    once you have put a draft letter together then put it on here to be checked over.
    Originally posted by JesterA1
    Thanks JesterA1 - is there a template that I could get started on somewhere. The ones I have looked at on here seem very long and not sure if they would be relevant
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Apr 14, 8:35 PM
    • 12,747 Posts
    • 15,327 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 14, 8:35 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 14, 8:35 PM
    not for this one , no

    you need to use the appeals in the links I posted, especially one of the more recent ones that won at popla
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
  • b1rdie
    • #7
    • 11th Apr 14, 8:50 AM
    • #7
    • 11th Apr 14, 8:50 AM
    Check the Thread Newbies and give it a read, you will find everything you need to do there including past cases which will have the full appeal process.

    Here is the link http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

    once you have put a draft letter together then put it on here to be checked over.
    Originally posted by JesterA1
    Here goes with my draft - I would appreciate any advice/amendments etc - many thanks to everyone that has helped out

    On ******* Premier Parking Solutions issued a parking charge notice of £100 because 'no valid ticket or permit was displayed'.

    I am challenging the above charge and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that these be considered

    1. Neither the parking company nor their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

    2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

    3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

    4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

    5. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required.

    Detailed points

    1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

    I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in.


    2. No valid contract with landowner

    It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
    In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

    It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

    3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

    Following receipt of the charge, I have visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

    The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

    The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

    4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

    The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue.

    The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location. The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

    For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

    5. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required.

    A payment for parking was made for the time the vehicle was located in the parking bay, and both tickets were displayed on the dashboard after payment. Adverse weather conditions at the time may have caused one of the 2 tickets to have fallen from the dashboard, explaining the photographic evidence from Premier Parking Solutions. I suggest that a sticker be provided on tickets (that many pay and display machines provide) to prevent this type of incident, or at least all information being on 1 ticket instead of 2. I have both tickets in my possession and attach them to this appeal letter as proof of payment.

    It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.
    Last edited by b1rdie; 11-04-2014 at 2:28 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Apr 14, 2:02 PM
    • 41,768 Posts
    • 53,897 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 15th Apr 14, 2:02 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Apr 14, 2:02 PM
    This is from a pretty old template, I would get rid of this bluster as it's more suited to ParkingEye:


    It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract. In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

    It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company


    and replace it with:


    Premier Parking Solutions have no proprietary interest in the land concerned and must provide me with a copy of the contract with the landowner in which authority to pursue outstanding parking charges is granted, as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 7. In particular, the issue of the requirement set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f) : “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drivers charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe that this Operator does not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge because they have not been assigned any title or specific rights to enforce or to make contracts with drivers in their own right.

    I require the unredacted landowner contract including any payments made between the parties, names & dates & details of all terms included. I suspect Premier Parking Solutions are merely a site agent and this is nothing more than a commercial agreement between the two parties. There is nothing that could enable this Operator to impact upon visiting drivers in their own right, for their own profit. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a mere “witness statement” instead of the relevant contract. There would be no proof that the alleged signatory can act on behalf of the landowner or has ever seen the relevant contract. Also a letter or statement would fail to show any payments made between the parties, and would omit dates & details of all terms in the actual contract - and so would fail to rebut my appeal point about the Operator's lack of standing & assignment of any rights.





    and I would make 'no GPEOL' your first point instead of your last, and add this to that same paragraph about loss, which is in fact words from a POPLA Assessor:


    The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be enforceable. Where there is an obvious initial loss (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss might be recoverable. But in a case where the driver has paid and displayed, and has stated that as fact in their appeal, any initial/consequential loss is not obvious. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued and has not demonstrated the potential loss which may have been caused initially by their employee apparently not being able to see the flimsy pay and display ticket. The ticket is not sticky which is a failure of the operation by the parking company and is well known to be the cause of this issue; my research has shown it is common for loose flimsy tickets to be easily overturned by the expected adverse weather conditions at a windy/rainy port in Winter. It would be perverse for an Operator to routinely profit from motorists who have paid and displayed, purely because the ticket their machines provide is not fit for purpose on this particular site which is almost always windy and rainy due to its proximity to the busy harbour. Any alleged loss is a figment of the Operator's imagination, any 'contract' having been frustrated not by the driver but by the Operator's own failure to provide a robust, sticky pay and display ticket or an electronic system which can store the payments/car data without relying upon a piece of paper.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-04-2014 at 2:15 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

  • b1rdie
    • #9
    • 13th May 14, 9:51 AM
    update
    • #9
    • 13th May 14, 9:51 AM
    My appeal has gone to Popla and this is basically what Premier Parking have sent to them last week. Not sure how I will now stand with this one and am assuming this will now be considered by POPLA


    In their initial appeal thecomplainant stated that they had displayed the ticket and sales receipt ontheir dashboard but the pay and display ticket must have fallen off.
    It was explained to thecomplainant’s initial appeal that they had not parked in accordance with theterms and conditions in that there was no pay and display ticket clearly ondisplay. Therefore the pcn was correctly issued for having no valid ticket orpermit on display.
    The complainant then appealedto POPLA stating that they had purchased a ticket and displayed both parts ontheir dashboard but one must have fallen off.

    Conditions on Signage andImages
    Having no valid pay and displayticket clearly on display is contrary to the advertised terms and conditions atthis site as displayed on signage at the entrance, on the tariff back boardsand throughout the site, specifically at Paras 2, 3 and 4 on these signs. Youcan see this on the attached photographs in the “conditions on signage” folder.Notably signage on the pay and display machine clearly states that the ticketand sales receipt must be clearly displayed on the dashboard or front window atall times. This is essential in order to prevent more than one car using theseparate ticket and sales receipt to try and show payment.

    Parking Charge Notice
    As such enforcement action wascorrectly undertaken as per the advertised terms and conditions with thecorrect due process. Production of a ticket or bank statement after the eventdoes not discharge the responsibility of parking in accordance with theadvertised terms and conditions of parking at the time of parking. In the pastwe have had experience of two cars using the two separate printouts having onlypaid once which is why we must insist that both parts are clearly displayed andis part of the terms and conditions.

    All correct planningpermissions are in place.
    The complainant also says thatthey would like us to provide a copy of our contract with the Landowners.Obviously this contains highly confidential information and while we would behappy to provide POPLA with a copy of our contract we would not wish it to beput within the public domain. Therefore please see the Witness Statement showing we have full authorisation and legal standingto manage, control and enforce, as Principal, at this site by way of a contractwith the landowner.

    Our signage throughout the siteis completely compliant with BPA guidelines and notably signage on the pay anddisplay machine clearly states that the ticket and sales receipt must beclearly displayed on the dashboard or front window at all times. It would notbe possible for the complainant to miss this when paying and not read it. Byparking at the site it is acknowledged that the complainant accepted our termsand conditions otherwise they were free to park elsewhere.
    Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss:-
    What Parking Charge NoticesRepresent
    The Parking Charge Notices thatwe issue represent liquidated and ascertained damages. When a motorist parks inbreach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, we incur a loss becauseincorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. The amountof the Parking Charge Notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of theadditional expense incurred by us as a result of this.
    Exceeded the AppropriateAmount
    It will be seen that the chargeof £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days is within the prescribedguidelines issued by the British Parking Association, our governing body. Thecharge is in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Thecomplainant has not offered any evidence as to why the charge exceeded theappropriate amount. Additionally this charge has not been paid either in wholeor part.
    Pre estimation of Loss
    It is often presumed by manymotorists, including the complainant in this POPLA appeal that there are nocosts (and therefore loss) incurred to the operator when issuing, administeringand collecting the charges involved when issuing a PCN. “A genuine preestimation of loss is just that, a genuine attempt to estimate the costsincurred for each PCN issued”
    The genuine pre-estimationof loss set out below refers to costs that we estimated, at the time of issuingthe PCN, may be incurred for this individual appeal only:
    Admin Expenses 1.00
    Post 3.00
    Printing 1.50
    DVLA fees - £5
    Loss of P&D Revenue forthis appeal . Bearing in mind that at
    the time of issue(pre-estimation) it appeared that parking had
    not been paid for and thatproduction of a ticket after the event
    does not necessarily proveotherwise 7.00
    Attendant and POPLA Appealsstaff wages and salaries
    including Employers NIContributions for the appeal:
    Attendants (PCN recording andissuing) for the appeal 2.60
    Appeals Staff 1 hour (callhandling /writing) 9.51
    Management at 3 hours (evidencegathering
    / appeal writing / POPLAreplies) 71.65
    Legal, Accounting and IT1.07
    Total Genuine Pre-estimation ofLoss for this appeal. 102.33
    As previously alluded there area number of costs incurred in the continuous enforcement process that are anecessity in making sure drivers adhere to the parking T&Cs advertised andthe chasing up of any outstanding and unpaid PCNs. These include:
    Wages and Salaries including Employers NIContributions - This is for the time it takes an attendant on the ground whopatrols the car parks, having once identified a contravention, to initiallyissue and record the PCNs and document, photograph and make notes of thetransgression. We estimate that on average an attendant spends 15 minutesrecording and issuing a PCN. The back office staff who manually check the issueof a PCN, examine and answer an appeal, take telephone questions or querieswith regards to the issue of a PCN and take phone payments for the PCN, weestimate that it takes between 1 and 1.5 hours for the appeals staff to takethese calls per appeal, examine an appeal (which are often multiple) andcompile the response to that appeal. It includes the cost of managers toexamine and quality control an appeal reply, the compiling of a POPLA evidencepack, the writing of an appeal reply and the submission of the same and theanswering of any further evidence submissions. It is estimated that three hoursof managers time (two hours senior managers, 1 hour director level) are takento check and approve the response to each appeal and examine and compile anevidence pack for submission as well as write any detailed appeal replies. Wehave 10 dedicated car parking attendants and two dedicated appeals members ofstaff.

    Legal,Accounting and other Professional Advice if needed
    Therefore contrary to theassumption of many motorists financial losses to the company are directlyincurred as soon as a contravention to the terms of parking as advertised ismade and a PCN is issued.
    With regards to justifying theamount of the PCN the considerable costs of dealing with an individual appealdemonstrate that there is a large cost (and therefore loss) to us as a companyand we are therefore justified in the amount of PCNs to cover these notinconsiderable costs.
    At present we are limited bythe British Parking Associations Codes of Practice and the Protection ofFreedoms Act 2012 as to what the level of a PCN can be charged. We chose on abusiness case, mindful of the costs incurred above, to levy a PCN of £100reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. Often it is the case that we incurcharges in excess of £100 but this additional cost has to be then subsidisedfrom other parts of our business.
    It has been calculated inadvance and is clearly set out on the notices and signage. As such it isaccepted on parking and the driver cannot claim that there are any tradingstandard or unfair consumer regulation breaches as they have accepted theconditions on parking and as you will see below these charges have been held tobe fair and reasonable.
    On accepting the parkingconditions we argue that the complainant cannot now in effect renegotiate this.The charge of £100 reduced to £60 is as advertised and within BPA guidelinesand in accordance with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    Last October after significantpressure from Government and motoring/consumer organisations, the BPA reducedthe maximum recommended charge for that a motorist should be expected to pay fora breach of the parking contract or for an act of trespass from £150 to 100.Despite the BPA being unable, due to prevailing OFT legislation, to fix pricesat this level, the actions of the Association were welcomed by allstakeholders. In this instance the charge being levied is within (well within)the recommendations set out within Clause 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.
    This sum, and the calculationswhich have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by thelandowner or his agent of the site. We are the primary at this site for carpark management services.

    We would contend that it is toolate now to indicate that he is unhappy with the parking charge – this shouldhave been done at the time of accepting the ‘parking contract’ - if themotorist was unhappy with the contract terms, they should not have remained atthe location. Our telephone number is on signage across the site should drivershave any questions or queries. We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonablecharge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contractand contend that it is not a ‘penalty’ for a number of reasons.
    We have calculated this sum asa genuine pre-estimate of our losses as we incur significant costs in dealingwith an appeal to ensure compliance to the stated terms & conditions and tofollow up on any breaches of these identified as detailed above.
    A genuine pre estimation ofloss is just that, a genuine attempt to estimate the costs (and therefore loss)incurred for each PCN issued given the significant costs incurred conducting anappeals process.
    The above costs in thisinstance was established after consideration of the loss which we incur on theticket issued and these headings above are as per Mr Henry MichaelGreenslade’s, POPLA Adjudicator, ruling on 18 November 2013, Point 43, as towhat constitutes genuine pre-estimation of loss.
    I quote Mr Greenslade’sdetermination of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimation of loss:
    “Each appeal will always turnof its own facts but both parties should be clear that a genuine pre-estimateof loss need not be a detailed estimate for each particular case. It is notthe specific loss caused by the actual breach but may include loss incurred orloss that might reasonably be incurred. However, it cannot include sumsthat are really the general business costs of the Operator’s car park servicesoperation.”
    “DVLA and associated fees forobtaining keeper details: clerical costs there arising, including stationeryand postage; legal and other professional advice; wages and salaries involvedin that, together with national insurance and similar related sums; the feelost by another vehicle not being able to park in the occupied space (wherethere is a fee); and even loss of revenue for which the parking is provided, doif established, fall within a genuine pre-estimation of loss. This list is notexhaustive but strongly indicative of the kind of items that could amount tosuch a genuine pre-estimate”.
    Our attendants can only examine a vehicle inthe condition it is left. Production of tickets after the

    Our signage meets allrequirements are more than adequate for any driver to see, read and understandwhen driving into this car park. Whilst the entrance signs again are more thanadequate the signage at the pay and display machines confirm the conditions forparking in this car park. We do not issue PCNs for a driver who upon enteringthe car park decides not to park there and then leaves. The complainant did notdo this, they failed to adhere to the terms and conditions they accepted havingparked and left their vehicle. We have many drivers who adhere to the terms andconditions at this site and park there willingly rather than for any perversereason. There is clear evidence that by staying at the location, the motoristhas accepted all of the prevailing terms & conditions of the parkingcontract including the charges for not complying with the advertised terms andconditions.
    The complainant states that theamount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayedon the dashboard as required. This was not the case, and it is essential thatboth tickets are displayed. It is the responsibility of the driver to checkthat all the advertised terms and conditions are adhered to. Our attendants canonly examine a vehicle in the condition in which it is left and leaving thevehicle in this way confirms that the PCN was correctly issued. The complainantstates that adverse weather conditions may have caused one of the 2 tickets tohave fallen from the dashboard. Again, our attendants can only examine avehicle in the condition in which it is left.
    Non Adhesive Backing Tickets without an adhesive back are not a hindranceto parking. They are used by many councils and private companies alikeincluding Humberside council and are industry standard.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 13th May 14, 10:23 AM
    • 820 Posts
    • 768 Thanks
    waamo
    Their GPEOL contains day to day running costs. National Insurance as part of a loss due to parking is having a laugh.

    They just don't get it despite all the coaching.
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 13th May 14, 11:12 AM
    • 1,617 Posts
    • 2,947 Thanks
    hoohoo
    So the cost at the time of issue is £10.50, and only rises to £100 if the motorist appeals. The charge should therefore be £11, rising to £12 after 14 days ( only 1 % of motorists appeal)

    The issue of double tickets has no value other than to generate parking tickets. They are under a duty to mitigate losses by operating a system not prone to error. In a windy location such as a port they are under a duty to mitigate losses by using adhesive tickets.
  • PEfighter
    Nobody seems to have mentioned Relevant Land. As this land is Hull Docks it should come under the ports authority legislation, therefore it isnt relevant land as per the Southampton/Town? Quay carpark.

    As the docks have security guards, and a barrier at the entrance to the docks, the motorist is TOLD where to park, its not an invitation. thoughts anyone?

    Byparking at the site it is acknowledged that the complainant accepted our termsand conditions otherwise they were free to park elsewhere.
    or maybe I'm missing something?
    Last edited by PEfighter; 14-05-2014 at 12:48 AM. Reason: added quote from appeal rejection
  • b1rdie
    Not sure what to do now, do I just leave it and wait for POPLA to write to me or do I try and pull something else together and send to POPLA prior to their decision. At the bottom of the letter that P Parking sent it states that :Regarding the registered keeper details this has not yet been applied for as the complainant has always indicated they were driving the vehicle Should this change we will apply for registered keeper’s details accordingly.


    Ive never said to them that I was the driver of the vehicle as I wasnt......
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 14th May 14, 11:33 AM
    • 1,617 Posts
    • 2,947 Thanks
    hoohoo
    I would write to popla and ask to add representations that the cost of the charge, at the point of sending the initial letter to the motorist is confirmed by the operator to be

    Post 3.00
    Printing 1.50
    DVLA fees - £5
    Attendants (PCN recording and issuing) for the appeal 2.60

    This totals £12.10, which is nowhere near the initial charge of £60.

    In addition you query the postage cost of £3 as £0.60 is more likely, the DVLA fee of £5 as it is known to be £2.50 and the printing cost of £1.50 as £0.10 is more likely for one double sided PCN.

    Your estimated total is therefore £5.80

    PPS cannot use people who pay within 14 days to subsidise late payers. If the rest of the fees are truly representational, which you do not believe, then the charge should be £6 for paying within 14 days and £100 after that time.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th May 14, 11:44 AM
    • 11,416 Posts
    • 17,151 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    These outfits truly know how to blow both feet off with just one pull on the trigger keyboard.

    I presume the shot before took their brains away
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
  • b1rdie
    [QUOTE=hoohoo;65521998]

    Post 3.00
    Printing 1.50
    DVLA fees - £5
    Attendants (PCN recording and issuing) for the appeal 2.60

    This totals £12.10, which is nowhere near the initial charge of £60.

    Also the letters all refer to the initial charge of £60.00 but on the the actual PCN that was stuck to the window of the car it states £50.00 which I did point out at my initial appeal to PPS but the case letter they sent to POPLA and copied me into still states the amount of £60.00
    • hoohoo
    • By hoohoo 14th May 14, 12:02 PM
    • 1,617 Posts
    • 2,947 Thanks
    hoohoo
    [QUOTE=b1rdie;65522150]

    Post 3.00
    Printing 1.50
    DVLA fees - £5
    Attendants (PCN recording and issuing) for the appeal 2.60

    This totals £12.10, which is nowhere near the initial charge of £60.

    Also the letters all refer to the initial charge of £60.00 but on the the actual PCN that was stuck to the window of the car it states £50.00 which I did point out at my initial appeal to PPS but the case letter they sent to POPLA and copied me into still states the amount of £60.00
    Originally posted by hoohoo
    Put that in your representation as well, so the assessor does not miss it
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th May 14, 11:40 PM
    • 41,768 Posts
    • 53,897 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just email an updated comment to POPLA having reviewed the PPC's 'evidence' and have a look at the Prankster's blog about this:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/total-parking-solutions-set-overstay.html

    Read that article from this week - the lower bit about PPS at Hull Docks - he's seen your thread here & you could use some of his wording in your email to POPLA.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 28-05-2014 at 12:59 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

  • b1rdie
    It is now saying this information on PPS website
    10-03-2014 POPLA appeals and pre-estimation of loss
    In the latest round of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service adjudications PPS continue to win these appeals including where drivers have relied on a perceived genuine pre-estimation of loss issue. The advice given on many internet forums is inaccurate, so please be aware that this is NOT a genuine reason for appeal and as can be seen from these adjudications this is not accepted by POPLA.
    Examples of recent adjudications found in our favour can be seen here:

    Adjudication 1
    Adjudication 2
    Adjudication 3
    Adjudication 4
    Adjudication 5

    16-10-2013 DON'T BELIEVE THE FORUMS Victory in the County Courts
    Judge endorses POPLA decision!
    • Hot Bring
    • By Hot Bring 15th May 14, 11:38 AM
    • 1,508 Posts
    • 2,614 Thanks
    Hot Bring
    It is now saying this information on PPS website
    10-03-2014 POPLA appeals and pre-estimation of loss
    In the latest round of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service adjudications PPS continue to win these appeals including where drivers have relied on a perceived genuine pre-estimation of loss issue. The advice given on many internet forums is inaccurate, so please be aware that this is NOT a genuine reason for appeal and as can be seen from these adjudications this is not accepted by POPLA.
    Examples of recent adjudications found in our favour can be seen here:

    Adjudication 1
    Adjudication 2
    Adjudication 3
    Adjudication 4
    Adjudication 5

    16-10-2013 DON'T BELIEVE THE FORUMS Victory in the County Courts
    Judge endorses POPLA decision!
    Originally posted by b1rdie
    They're trying to scare people ! That is their business model - make people so afraid they pay up. You will win at POPLA.
    It's the PALACE pier !!!!!!
    Albany Assistance - live in Albany WA ? Google us for help.

    "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis." - Dante Alighieri
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,297Posts Today

7,260Users online

Martin's Twitter