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
    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 3rd Jun 17, 11:31 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 5Thanks
    Dr N
    CP Plus PCN
    • #1
    • 3rd Jun 17, 11:31 AM
    CP Plus PCN 3rd Jun 17 at 11:31 AM
    Many thanks to all of you who regularly contribute to this section of the forum.
    My car has received a few tickets in the last month (all of which I plan to appeal) for not parking in valid bays in my hospital car park, which I already pay for on a monthly basis. On certain days it gets too busy, hence not parking in the bay, it's common amongst staff members as long as you aren't blocking anyone.

    I am currently appealing the first ticket. I used the blue coloured text from the 'Newbies...' thread as CP Plus are BPA members. They have rejected my appeal and sent me a POPLA code. This is what I plan to send:

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    I am the registered keeper of xxxxxxx and I wish to appeal the Car Parking PCN xxxxxxxx on the following basis:
    1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    2. CP Plus have formed no contract with the driver (lack of signage, no consideration/acceptance).
    3. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish 'keeper liability' under PoFA 2012.
    4. Lack of standing/authority from landowner
    5. Unreasonable/Unfair Contract Terms. Explained below:

    1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A valid parking permit had been purchased and was clearly on display on the day of the incident. This permit allows parking in any designated staff car park. Photographic evidence supplied by CPP confirms the location as the staff parking area. The parking charge should compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. In this instance, unpaid charges are nil as a parking permit for the vehicle was purchased well before the date of issue of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and was in force at the time. Any breakdown purporting to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss cannot include general business expenses because these would remain the same whether or not there were any alleged breaches of contract by drivers. CP Plus has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge. The BPA Code of Practice states: “19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.“ and “19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. “ The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. PTL cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate): The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST': "19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.'' Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that: ''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”. This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.'' I put CP Plus to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date CP Plus have not provided me with a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business 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 in this pre-estimate of loss.

    2. CPP have no contract with the driver of the vehicle; no consideration nor acceptance has flowed between the parties so the elements of a contract do not exist. The issue of a staff parking permit and parking privileges is strictly between the employer and staff member and is the only extant contract relating to parking this car on this site by this driver. Despite what they may say, CPP cannot re-offer the same parking space on different terms and allege a charge is due when there has been no loss suffered and the driver is permitted to park there. CPP signs in this car park are sparse and unclear, to the extent that they are incapable of forming a contract even if the driver had seen and agreed to the terms, which is not the case in this instance. A lack of signs at the entrance to a car park, and unclear wording, is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and creates no contract. From the pictures below, there is a sign 10m before the entrance, but this is not only small, but is also partially covered by leaves. There is no sign at the entrance, and within the car park itself there are no signs as can again be seen from the pictures.

    3. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is on two grounds: (a) The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at a specified timeon the day in question. (b) The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor'. POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the NTK is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant NTK are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in the NTK wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. As I was not the driver myself, there is no case against me at all so it is, at best, surprising and irksome that CPP are pursuing this matter and wasting my time. I expect POPLA will see the significance of an operator trying to pursue a keeper, in a case where no keeper liability can be established by virtue of the operator's own failures.

    4. Lack of standing/authority from landowner. CP Plus has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put CP Plus to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). CP Plus have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied showing that CP Plus are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right in the courts. I require CP Plus to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA CoP and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

    5. Unreasonable/Unfair Contract Terms. I would assert that the charge being claimed by CP Plus is a punitive sum. The following refers: Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'(UTCCR 1999): ''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...'' Test of fairness: ''A term is unfair if...contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers. 5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer. 9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.'' The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the UTCCR 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states: '18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. A sign of terms placed as described in point 2 above, is far from 'transparent'. Schedule 2 of the Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "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". The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.” I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on barely readable signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by the act of parking. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform CP Plus that the charge is dismissed.

    Yours faithfully,


    Qs:
    1. Is this alright?
    2. To be fair I think the letter they sent is POFA compliant, but should I leave it in there anyway?

    Many thanks again.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 3rd Jun 17, 11:44 AM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 18,498 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 3rd Jun 17, 11:44 AM
    • #2
    • 3rd Jun 17, 11:44 AM
    1) wont help due to the BEAVIS case concluded over 18 months ago

    study post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread for up to date appeal points

    very few letters are POFA2012 compliant, so I doubt theirs is
    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
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 3rd Jun 17, 12:07 PM
    • 39,594 Posts
    • 79,187 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 3rd Jun 17, 12:07 PM
    • #3
    • 3rd Jun 17, 12:07 PM
    As above, ditch point 1 and use all the relevant template appeal points from post 3 of the NEWBIES including the very long inadequate signage point.

    Take time stamped pictures of the signs around the parking area and entrance.

    Have you got a Union Rep? If so they should be hammering the hospital management about this.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jun 17, 2:50 PM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 3rd Jun 17, 2:50 PM
    • #4
    • 3rd Jun 17, 2:50 PM
    None of the points in the first draft POPLA appeal above, is based on the templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. Your version is based on a really old one, please bin it and use the templates instead.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 04-06-2017 at 1:37 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 4th Jun 17, 10:09 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dr N
    • #5
    • 4th Jun 17, 10:09 AM
    • #5
    • 4th Jun 17, 10:09 AM
    Many thanks again for all of your replies.

    VERSION 2

    1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
    3. CP Plus's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.
    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
    5. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
    6. This charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease - as decided by the Appeal case of 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016, which also held that the Beavis case does not apply to this sort of car park.


    1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    Link

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    Link

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    Link

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    Link

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    Link

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    Link

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 4th Jun 17, 10:12 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dr N
    • #6
    • 4th Jun 17, 10:12 AM
    • #6
    • 4th Jun 17, 10:12 AM
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


    3. CP Plus's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, and 12. CP Plus have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that an operator must have provided the keeper with a Notice to Keeper (NTK) in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates as mandatory, a set timeline and wording:-

    The notice must be given by—
    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

    The applicable section here is (b) because the Parking Charge Notice/NTK that I have received was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

    ’’The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

    The Parking Charge Notice sent to myself as Registered Keeper was produced in their offices showing a purported ‘date issued’ which was already past the 14 days by which, under statute, it had to be in my hands/served. Even if they had posted it that day it would be impossible for the notice to have been delivered within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).

    In fact, this NTK arrived over four weeks after the alleged event. This means that CP Plus have failed to act within the 14 day relevant period. Furthermore, it is clear that CP Plus know this because they have made no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was, which brings me to my next point below.


    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


    5. This charge is unconscionable and offends against the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged' in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis

    The operator makes much of the Beavis case, yet they are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different. Essentially, that case was about the abuse of a free, time-limited public car park where signage could be used to create a secondary contract arising from a relevant obligation and where there was a 'legitimate interest' flowing from the landowner, in charging more than could normally be pursued for trespass.

    In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately and there has been no loss nor detriment caused to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that this 'fine' is a conscionable amount to be charged under these circumstances.

    At the Supreme Court in Beavis, it was held at 14: ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty… ''

    This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32 in the Beavis decision, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

    Therefore, any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair:

    Link

    - Schedule 2: 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair':
    ’’A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations…’’
    ''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

    This charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which does NOT supersede other defences. It turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification. This case is not comparable.

    In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would agree to a term where parking in a place that they enjoy rights of way and easements and pay a significant rent for the privilege of peaceful enjoyment would also accept a further unknown/not agreed liability. I would suggest that a court would not accept this is reasonable and indeed my next appeal point shows that a Senior Circuit Judge in a 2016 appeal case supports my view.


    6. This charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease - as decided by the Appeal case of 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016, which also held that the Beavis case does not apply to this sort of car park.

    In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other 'legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question'. The true test was held to be 'whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation'.

    There can be no legitimate interest in punishing authorised parking, under the excuse of a 'parking' scheme where ostensibly - and as far as the landowner is concerned - the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the leaseholders/landholders/tenants. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and 'out of all proportion to any legitimate interest' to issue a parking penalty for permitted unloading/loading by a driver who has legitimate business and rights to do so.

    These rights supersede any signs, which are of no consequence except to deter rogue unwanted drivers from leaving their vehicles when they have no business on site. This is true of any residential or business car park where tenants/leaseholders (who may be individuals or businesses) enjoy legal 'rights of way' which extend to drivers permitted to park. A third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of a tenancy agreement or a lease, nor disregard easements and rights of way that prevail in such car parks (residential or industrial).

    This question was tested recently in an Appeal case in June 2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA*). Please note this is an Appeal case, decided by a Senior Circuit Judge and as such, its findings on the definition of 'parking as opposed to loading' and the findings on leaseholder/permitted visitor/loading/delivering rights of way superseding parking signs, are persuasive on the lower courts.

    Beavis did not deal with any of these matters - nor was it relevant to a 'permit' car park - but the following case and transcript I have provided, is relevant and the Judge even states that Beavis DOES NOT APPLY to this type of car park:

    Appeal case at Oxford County Court, 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016:

    Sitting in Oxford County Court, Judge Charles Harris QC, found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats who parked in front of the communal entrance to unload furniture, rather than use her own parking space. After an initial appeal to the Independent Parking Committee was rejected, Home Guard Services sued Miss Jopson in the small claims court and won. Miss Jopson successfully appealed the case, her solicitors arguing that the charge was incompatible with the terms of the existing lease which also extended to certain rights for permitted visitors when loading/unloading. The Judge found that Laura Jopson and her fellow tenants (as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) enjoy a right of way to the block’s entrance and that Home Guard Services’ regulations disregarded these rights. Home Guard Services were required to pay £2,000 towards the defendant's costs.

    I also rely upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA**).

    District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, stating: ''I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.''
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 4th Jun 17, 11:05 AM
    • 13,571 Posts
    • 21,270 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 4th Jun 17, 11:05 AM
    • #7
    • 4th Jun 17, 11:05 AM
    Looks pretty comprehensive to me, although I've not been through it with a fine toothcomb. You seemed to have picked up the relevant appeal template points from the newbies sticky.

    Just a couple of comments:

    Not sure how strong the Jopson or Pace Recovery cases are as they primarily relate to residential parking, although you might argue that you have some form of 'lease' to park your car via your permit. See what others say.

    Links and photographs. Where possible, you should embed as many/much as you can to save the assessor having to jump backwards and forwards between your appeal wording and various other webpages. You want to try to make the assessor your 'friend'. Can you imagine the brain-mushing task of having to read dozens of 3,000+ word (and I've seen some at 6,000) appeals word by word, each and every day of the week. It's hard enough here, where we can skim-read to a degree, but they have to analyse anything and everything in order to reach a considered opinion and get it right. They're welcome to the job IMHO.

    When submitting this, you convert it to a .pdf file and attach it to the appeal portal. Reason for appeal dropdown box - select OTHER.

    If you're not up against any silly deadline rush to get this off, wait to see if anyone else has any comment.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 04-06-2017 at 11:09 AM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 4th Jun 17, 12:04 PM
    • 39,594 Posts
    • 79,187 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #8
    • 4th Jun 17, 12:04 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Jun 17, 12:04 PM
    As above. It looks good but I'm not sure that the Jopson case is entirely relevant, however a tweaking to cover the fact that the keeper pays for parking under a pre-existing contract might have some legs.

    Personally I would amend your first point though. As a regular hospital patient I would object most strongly to being called a customer. Other opinions are available.

    Also as above, embed photos instead of links. That way the assessor has to look at them. You must include your own images of signs at the hospital to show how they are inadequate and not saved by Beavis.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jun 17, 2:06 PM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 4th Jun 17, 2:06 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Jun 17, 2:06 PM
    I am confused on one point:

    If CP Plus are issuing PCNs for parking out of a bay, surely these can't have arrived by post/been imposed by ANPR? Must have been on the windscreen? If so, surely if you appealed within 28 days there never was any Notice to Keeper posted? Or did you wait for each postal NTK?


    Secondly, I would replace the final point with this, instead:


    6. This charge is not properly given in that it breaches Government Policy by incentivising penalties, given the fact that this operator only receives income if victims are fined. This disregard for Government Policy breaches the BPA Code of Practice, and is therefore unconscionable and unrecoverable. In addition, staff members already pay for parking and have a contract which allows staff to park in this manner when the car parks are full.

    A £100 punitive fine imposed on authorised staff in a Hospital car park disregards the NHS 'Car Parking Principles' first put forward by the Department for Health in 2014 and subsequently updated and established as clear Government Guidance, in 2015:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-car-parking-management-htm-07-03

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

    ''NHS trusts should publish:

    - their parking policy
    - their implementation of the NHS car parking principles
    - financial information relating to their car parking
    - summarised complaint information on car parking and actions taken in response''

    Contracted-out car parking:
    NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf. NHS organisations should act against rogue contractors in line with the relevant codes of practice where applicable.

    Contracts should not be let on any basis that incentivises additional charges.''


    In this case, CP Plus is 'incentivised' to fine as many victims as possible because they receive all income at this location from parking penalties (not any tariffs, which go to the Hospital itself). The operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

    It is also believed that the NHS car parking principles have NOT been implemented, even when re-assessing/signing the latest contract, and CP Plus are put to strict proof to the contrary. Evidence of this wholesale and wilful disregard for the NHS Car Parking Principles (effectively regulation, like the BPA Code of Practice) is further shown by the fact there has been no 'reasonable implementation' of charging practice, described thus by the Government:

    ''Reasonable implementation of additional charges practice might include additional charges for people who do not have legitimate reasons for parking (eg commuters), or who persistently flout parking regulations (eg blocking entrances)...''

    None of the above was the case with this NHS Trust/CP Plus and the driver was a staff member at the Hospital where permission to park was undoubtedly granted by the NHS Trust. Staff members already pay for their parking in a contract with the Hospital itself, on a monthly basis, and so parking cannot be ''re-offered'' on more onerous terms to staff; there can be no such contract when parking is already granted to staff by the Hospital.

    Further, agreed parking in this manner, outside of bays if necessary, is already accepted practice and is allowed by the Hospital and such agreement cannot be undone/re-written by CP Plus, who are not a party to the payment/parking contract between the Hospital and their staff. On some days the site gets too busy for all staff members to park in bays and it has previously been verbally agreed, and is a practice accepted by the Hospital, that staff cars can be parked in other areas as long as no obstruction is caused.

    No blocking of entrances occurred, and there was no flouting of agreed parking regulations, as they specifically relate to staff. Even if CP Plus can impose different parking rules on visitors and patients, they cannot impose a new parking contract on staff who already pay for parking under previously-agreed terms. Such drivers have primacy of contract at this location.

    In ParkingEye v Beavis at 32, it was made clear that a test has to be considered in every case and an interest will 'RARELY' extend beyond the usual penalty rule (i.e Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty will apply in almost every case). This £100 charge is a clear penalty because it is entirely punitive, with no other compelling commercial rationale nor even unambiguous excuses to support its imposition on staff. The Beavis judgment makes clear that the Courts would consider the disproportionate charge to penalise NHS staff, to be the very essence of 'unconscionable'.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 04-06-2017 at 4:06 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 4th Jun 17, 11:47 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dr N
    Coupon-mad: It was a windscreen PCN and I appealed on the 26th day. I got the PCN on 14/3, and I received the NTK on 19/4.

    Many thanks to all of you for your help. I am planning to send it tomorrow, with the links/pictures/edits from above. I will let you know the outcome. Thanks again!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jun 17, 11:55 PM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Interesting that CP Plus remembered they had to send a NTK, despite an appeal! Many PPCs do not.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 14th Jun 17, 12:42 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dr N
    Hello again,

    I received the evidence pack from CP Plus. It is made up of various sections:

    Section A: Almost like a table of contents.
    Section B: The only time they have mentioned anything with regards to the actual case, please see below. They have attached pictures and also a copy of the Trust car parking policy.
    Section C: The actual parking charge notice
    Section D: My original appeal (not the POPLA one) and their rejection. They haven’t attached the NTK.

    So section B is made up of the below:

    •The appellant was issued a Parking Charge Notice at … Code 05 – Not parked in a designated parking space.
    •The driver was parked in the staff permit area but not in a parking space – photos enclosed.
    • I have provided extracts taken from the Trusts car parking policy & the permit booklet which is distributed and available to staff members which details that a PCN will be issued if not parked in a designated bay.
    • When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorists responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. POPLA should not allow an appeal where a parking contract was formed, and the motorist did not keep to the terms offered.
    • The motorist formed the contract with us the operator by parking their vehicle on our land. The terms and conditions of the contract are outlined in the signage offered at the car park. When deciding to park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with these. By remaining parked the appellant accepted the terms and conditions offered but failed to adhere to them.
    • On the day of the parking incident the driver did not park in a designated parking space therefore had breached the terms & conditions of the site therefore the PCN were issued correctly.

    My amateur response based on links from the Newbies thread:

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    Ref. POPLA appeal xxxxxxxxxx

    In response to the "evidence pack" CP Plus have submitted please find the relevant points below.
    In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on ….

    1. In rebuttal to the claim by CP Plus that the signage is clearly displayed, and there is signage at the car park entrance, I will refer to the BPA:CoP, which CP Plus fails to comply with, despite claiming otherwise:

    Section 18, paragraph 2 (S18P2):

    “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.”

    And I draw your attention to this paragraph in the aforementioned Appendix B:

    “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a much smaller size.”

    Please see the pictures below which clearly show that there is no signage at the entrance to the car park, there is only a small sign 10m away at a bend in the road. CP Plus have attached in their evidence pack a picture showing the sign up close, however even within this picture not only is the penalty charge sum of £40 in the same sized font as the rest of the wording, but it is not even highlighted. Furthermore, if CP Plus had taken a picture of the sign from further back, you would be able to see the branches of a tree slightly covering the sign, I have also shown this in a picture below. Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the terms to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    Please also note how CP Plus have not attached any signs from within the actual car park, this is because there are no signs around the area where my car was parked, again please see the pictures below.


    2. Within their evidence pack, CP Plus have failed to show a Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown to show how they have come up with £80: as business costs are not losses and they cannot be passed down to a motorist as GPEOL. Furthermore, this charge is not properly given in that it breaches Government Policy by incentivising penalties, given the fact that this operator only receives income if victims are fined. This disregard for Government Policy breaches the BPA Code of Practice, and is therefore unconscionable and unrecoverable.

    Furthermore I point the POPLA adjudicator to the following verdicts from past adjudications, circumstances which are similar to this case in that the appeal was upheld due to one or more of the reasons I cite in my own appeal:

    1. POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 in response to VCS adjudication and GPEOL that:

    ''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bank of Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”

    2. "...The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

    The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Although a detailed breakdown may not necessarily be required to prove this, as the appellant has questioned the level of the charge in this case, it is necessary for the operator to provide an explanation as to how this sum was arrived at as an estimate of the damage which could be caused by the appellant’s alleged breach. However, the operator has not provided a breakdown of costs under each head of claim. I am unable to see how the parking charge amount has been calculated. In addition, the operator has included “Central Payments Office (CPO) – Indirect Overheads”. I do not accept that these costs have been incurred as a direct result of the appellant’s breach. As the operator has not produced a breakdown of costs, I am unable to determine the proportion of these costs in relation to other heads of claim listed by the operator. On this occasion, I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.

    In consideration of all the evidence before me, I find that the operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."


    3. Within their evidence pack, CP Plus have failed to provide evidence of a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract.


    4. Within their evidence pack, CP Plus have failed to show their Notice to Keeper which I believe is not fully compliant with POFA 2012 legislation, please see my original appeal where I expand on this point.


    Once again, I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform CP Plus to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

    Yours faithfully,

    THE REGISTERED KEEPER

    Many thanks again for all of your help!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 17, 8:05 PM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove point #2 entirely as 'no GPEOL' was removed by the Supreme Court Judges in a ridiculous decision that has caused innocent people to be dragged to court in their thousands by this scummy industry, ever since.

    I would put this that you had as #4, as point #1 because you will win on this point:

    4. Within their evidence pack, CP Plus have failed to show their any Notice to Keeper. which I believe is not fully compliant with POFA 2012 legislation Please see my original appeal where I expand on the point of 'no keeper liability'' and the lack of evidence of the individual liable. The driver has not been identified. The operator has only shown a Notice to Driver. Given the omission of any Notice to Keeper from the evidence supplied, they cannot possibly have proven to POPLA that they complied with the POFA 2012, so POPLA cannot find me liable in law.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 14-06-2017 at 8:08 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 15th Jun 17, 1:07 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dr N
    Many thanks! Do I just put the below into a PDF and send it to info@popla.co.uk with the appeal number as the subject?

    Updated:

    Dear Sirs

    Ref. POPLA appeal xxxxxxxxxx

    In response to the "evidence pack" CP Plus have submitted please find the relevant points below.
    In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original POPLA appeal as submitted on ….

    1. Within their evidence pack, CP Plus have failed to show any Notice to Keeper. Please see my original appeal where I expand on the point of 'no keeper liability'' and the lack of evidence of the individual liable. The driver has not been identified. The operator has only shown a Notice to Driver. Given the omission of any Notice to Keeper from the evidence supplied, they cannot possibly have proven to POPLA that they complied with the POFA 2012, so POPLA cannot find me liable in law.

    2. In rebuttal to the claim by CP Plus that the signage is clearly displayed, and there is signage at the car park entrance, I will refer to the BPA:CoP, which CP Plus fails to comply with, despite claiming otherwise:

    Section 18, paragraph 2 (S18P2):

    “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.”

    And I draw your attention to this paragraph in the aforementioned Appendix B:

    “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead. Any text on the sign not intended to be read from a moving vehicle can be of a much smaller size.”

    Please see the pictures below which clearly show that there is no signage at the entrance to the car park, there is only a small sign 10m away at a bend in the road. CP Plus have attached in their evidence pack a picture showing the sign up close, however even within this picture not only is the penalty charge sum of £40 in the same sized font as the rest of the wording, but it is not even highlighted. Furthermore, if CP Plus had taken a picture of the sign from further back, you would be able to see the branches of a tree slightly covering the sign, I have also shown this in a picture below. Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the terms to which it is alleged I agreed as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    Please also note how CP Plus have not attached any signs from within the actual car park, this is because there are no signs around the area where my car was parked, again please see the pictures below.

    3. Within their evidence pack, CP Plus have failed to provide evidence of a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract.

    Once again, I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform CP Plus to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

    Yours faithfully,

    THE REGISTERED KEEPER
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 9:11 PM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes but only give them one single attachment, not photos as well. Embed any photo into the PDF so it's one document.

    In the covering email explain that this is your comments document on the evidence pack for POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx and you have had to email it due to the restricted word-count on the Portal and the fact you have embedded a photo, which the Portal can't accept.

    Finish by saying these are not new appeal points, merely comments and a photo related to your appeal and to rebut the misleading evidence, so you ask that this PDF of comments is put before the Assessor before a decision is made.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 16th Jun 17, 7:07 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dr N
    Many thanks Coupon-mad.

    I've sent it all. Should I necessarily expect to receive an email back confirming they have received it?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 7:28 PM
    • 48,025 Posts
    • 61,472 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It would be courteous if they did, but POPLA are hit and miss on admin.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Dr N
    • By Dr N 27th Jun 17, 6:30 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Dr N
    Many thanks to all, especially Coupon-mad. I am still awaiting to hear back from POPLA concerning the above case.

    I have another ticket in exactly the same circumstances as above. After I appealed to CP Plus, I received a reply (by email) from a 'Parking Collection Services', who informed me I would now be dealing with themselves, and not CP Plus. Within this email, they have also given me a POPLA code.

    I imagine it would be alright for me to appeal in the same way as I have done above?

    Many thanks again.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 27th Jun 17, 6:57 PM
    • 13,571 Posts
    • 21,270 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I imagine it would be alright for me to appeal in the same way as I have done above?
    In theory, yes. However, if there's enough time before your POPLA deadline, await your current POPLA decision, and if successful, quote verbatim and add the successful POPLA decision, its reference number, the date and the name of the assessor making the decision.

    If the current appeal is not successful, time to revisit the drawing board and adjust in light of why the current appeal failed.

    HTH
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
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

106Posts Today

1,887Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin