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
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 11th Oct 17, 9:39 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 2Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    PCN appeal in Permit Area
    • #1
    • 11th Oct 17, 9:39 PM
    PCN appeal in Permit Area 11th Oct 17 at 9:39 PM
    Evening everyone, I had another thread on this but chose to have it removed and start again. Boil the kettle!!

    Long and short of it - I am the keeper of a vehicle, a valid permit is in place for the vehicle at a private car park. I have been made aware of a situation recently, where the driver did display the permit, but the permit unknowingly fell into the footwell upon exiting the vehicle. It was still visible through the window as it landed "face up" - we have photographic evidence.

    PCN issued by PPC presumably acting on behalf of the landowner (although we have no evidence of this yet!). PCN states reason for issue, quote "parked without a valid parking ticket/permit" note omission of the terms 'clearly displaying' or 'displaying'!

    Appealed in good faith to PPC with photo of valid permit, that was rejected immediately, so it's looking like POPLA - but I appealed to the PPC very early; so I will have to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of rejection, which will be before the PPC has had a chance to issue a NTK - although if I leave it as late as possible, the NTK may be issued whilst the POPLA appeal is in process - or if I mention to POPLA that a NTK hasn't yet been issued, do they 'hang on' for the PPC to do this? Will they take further evidence during the appeal process if it comes to light (in terms of a bodged NTK)? Clarification needed please.

    Anyway, the permit. The permit was purchased from the landowner (a university) via their online system. The only t&c's the permit holder/applicant had to agree to upon purchase were that they tick a box to accept the university's parking policy. Contained within the parking policy there is no mention of amount in £ of any 'charges' they may try apply to the permit holder in case of a violation of the t&c's of the policy - so I consider this section of contract void due to uncertainty. There is no stipulation of how or where in/on the vehicle the permit should be displayed or that it should be displayed continuously for the duration of the parking event. There is no mention that any third party PPC is authorised to issue PCN on the landowner's behalf -the wording just says that the landowner reserves the right to use a PCN. There is no mention that the permit holder must obey the signage in the car parks - in fact there is no mention of signage at all.

    I am taking the fact the permit holder ticked the box, when applying for the permit, as the 'contract' with regards to the permit holder parking on the land.

    The PCN was issued by a third party PPC - not the landowner.
    Am I correct in saying just because this company has displayed signage in the area, it doesn't automatically mean that a new/additional contract has been entered into between the permit holder/driver and the PPC? Does the original contract (online application) supersede any newer contracts, unless the newer contract ('agreed to' by the act of parking in area that has displayed signage) explicitly voids the original one (which it doesn't in this case)?

    Before I copy in my draft POPLA appeal, I'd like to know I am taking the correct approach by denying a contract exists between the permit holder and the PPC.

    However to cement my POPLA appeal, I am considering firing on all cylinders - packing out the appeal not just with 'incorrect claimant' argument, but the following relevant arguments too:

    >> full comprehensive details on how the signage does not meet the BPA CoP; including referring to PPC's own photographic evidence which I have downloaded, which does not show the vehicle parked within eyeshot of any signage. Signage does not mention 'contract' at all in any wording.
    >> that the wording on the PCN is void as it does not the specify reason for issue as 'not clearly displaying' permit - just 'parked WITHOUT valid permit' - this is wrong because the vehicle is parked WITH a valid permit (and the landowner knows this)
    >> no evidence of landowner authority - onus is on operator to produce contract between them and landowner
    >> operator has at this time failed to prove liability onto an individual. They do not know who the driver was and I refuse to reveal who it was. NTK not yet received. Hoping when it is, they mess it up by not including everything they need to under POFA2012 - so watch this space
    >> charge sought is not a valid, genuine pre-estimate of loss - because the permit was already paid for. Even in the case of the vehicle being parked without 'displaying' a valid permit (which I deny), the fact remains that a valid permit is in place for the vehicle, and no financial or other loss has occurred to either the landowner or PPC. Therefore the charge sought is invalid.
    >> if signage is supposed to be a contract (despite not saying so), then it is covered as a 'distance contract' : The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader. >> I then go on to detail which specific aspects of the CCICaAC regs 2013 the trader has failed to meet.

    What are your thoughts on my case guys? Have I missed anything or more importantly is there anything I need to omit?

    I have lots of evidence regarding the signage, which I can elaborate on further if required. I'm also in the process of drafting a bullet-pointed POPLA appeal which might make easier reading than my waffle above.

    Thanks in advance!
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Oct 17, 10:12 PM
    • 14,932 Posts
    • 23,439 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 11th Oct 17, 10:12 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Oct 17, 10:12 PM
    Is this different to your other case? Why remove that and all the considered advice that was given - people do take time to provide that, including in your original thread, inputs from practising Solicitors. All that seems to have been despatched to the ‘Delete Thread’ bin. Now we seem to be faced with another long list of questions. Not a great encouragement for those who have already given advice.

    This is easy and can be beaten at POPLA without all the hypotheses. You’ve appealed (too) early, so may (or may not) miss out on the possibility of no Keeper liability - likely your POPLA deadline might expire before the 56 day deadline for the issue of a compliant NtK. But there are other very well documented appeal points that you can put into your POPLA draft, once you’ve received your rejection from the PPC.

    It just needs to be dealt with as thousands before have without complicating matters with questions that will probably never arise.

    You’ve not stated here who the PPC is (can’t remember from your original thread) - but that would give us a chance of giving you an idea at how good they are at dealing with simple POPLA appeals and whether or not they are litigious.

    Here’s one issue that can be ‘ditched’. Beavis put paid to this - look it up.

    >> charge sought is not a valid, genuine pre-estimate of loss
    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.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Oct 17, 10:15 PM
    • 16,072 Posts
    • 20,104 Thanks
    Redx
    • #3
    • 11th Oct 17, 10:15 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Oct 17, 10:15 PM
    frankly, I think the fact that all the other advice has now been deleted means that people here wont bother in helping you once more, I certainly wont and am appalled that all the advice by LOC123 has gone into the bin

    yours digustedly

    Redx
    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
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Oct 17, 10:16 PM
    • 3,950 Posts
    • 2,191 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 11th Oct 17, 10:16 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Oct 17, 10:16 PM
    I'll leave it to others.
    .
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 11th Oct 17, 11:20 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    • #5
    • 11th Oct 17, 11:20 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Oct 17, 11:20 PM
    Redx, I actually requested to have the thread removed because you personally had quoted a few sentences of one of my posts - yes it's my fault for potentially leaving myself wide open on a public forum - but I would have thought someone of your experience on the forum could refrain from quoting chapter/verse in case the post needed to be edited. I did try to message you to edit your own post but you've set your privacy settings to "castle and moat" level meaning I couldn't even drop you a message!!

    None of the excellent advice given by the several forum members has gone in the bin. I kept copies of their posts before 'binning' the thread, FYI, so although their posts are no longer viewable to the public they are to me. And as I had edited all my posts before I realised I couldn't even ask you to amend yours, any other forum member reading their replies wouldn't have been able to make much sense of half of it without seeing my posts that they'd replied to.

    Umkomaas - I've looked up the Beavis case - but several points are made to contend that one, and on one point another case is quoted as going against Beavis. I can copy and paste what I have if it helps the discussion. Apologies if I offended anyone. As stated I only removed the original thread so as not to drop myself in it and I will be careful in future of what I type. As a newbie I didn't realise that if someone quoted me in their own post, and I deleted the original, that the quotation remains - but I thought even if that was the case I'd simply ask the person who quoted me to remove their post - but again you made this impossible Redx.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 9:24 AM
    • 16,072 Posts
    • 20,104 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:24 AM
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:24 AM
    no I didnt, all you had to do was post in the thread and ask me to edit any of my posts

    alternatively, you could have pm,d soolin or another board guide like crabman and asked them to edit my posts or asked them to PM me to edit my posts on their behalf (it is one of the main reasons that forums have board guides)

    alternatively , you can REPORT the post using the report button and ask the admins to edit the posts or to PM me to ask me to edit the posts on their behalf

    people like me keep my pm box private to stop unwanted communications from members wanting private advice. You will find that almost ALL the forum regulars do this trick , including coupon-mad , umkomaas and many others

    the forum has existing mechanisms and staff in place to do as you wanted

    getting back to this thread, you can ask the admin staff to transfer the relevant posts from the other thread into this one, or you could copy and paste the info into this one so people can see what has gone on before

    so dont make this about me , when in fact it is YOU that has failed to allow for all the old info being put in here and it is YOU that hasnt followed forum guidelines for getting unwanted information out of any replies in previous threads

    there was no need to remove the old thread, just a need to follow the forum etiquette and guidelines on removing unwanted information , by the admin staff and board guides either doing it for themselves or asking them to PM me on your behalf !!
    Last edited by Redx; 12-10-2017 at 9:37 AM.
    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
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 12th Oct 17, 9:38 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:38 AM
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:38 AM
    I didn't post in the thread for the very same reason I wanted the post taken down - I did not want any 'external' entities seeing what I had written in the meantime. I did not want to highlight the thread and 'bump it' to the top.


    I am new to this forum and therefore did not know of the existing mechanisms. I don't know who the existing board 'guides' are. I couldn't find anywhere to delete the thread myself so defaulted to emailing the address at the top of the page. Funnily enough they actioned my request - are you saying they shouldn't have done? Should the people who run the forum obey your etiquette instead?

    If anyone else has any constructive input for my case please let me know, and again, all constructive input is really appreciated.
    Last edited by yorkshirebloke; 12-10-2017 at 10:31 AM. Reason: edit
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Oct 17, 9:45 AM
    • 14,932 Posts
    • 23,439 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:45 AM
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:45 AM
    Umkomaas - I've looked up the Beavis case - but several points are made to contend that one, and on one point another case is quoted as going against Beavis. I can copy and paste what I have if it helps the discussion.
    You can accept my advice if you want it - as it comes. If your research shows different, go with that if you think it’s better. I don’t need to see any more of the Beavis case; I’ve lived and breathed it daily for the past 2 years!

    Sorry, but I don’t come here for ‘discussion’, there are too many people to help who go with our advice, without nugatory debate over lengthy hypotheses, and the vast majority come out the other side as winners.

    You may not realise, but there are fewer regulars who contribute here than you have fingers. We deal with at least 75 threads each and every day - 24/7/365, some which are genuinely complicated.
    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.
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 12th Oct 17, 9:49 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:49 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 9:49 AM
    I simply don't have the energy to continue involving myself in needless tit-for-tat discussion about frivolous and irrelevant matters - which is a shame as the information provided here is valuable. But thanks anyway for the advice!
    Last edited by yorkshirebloke; 12-10-2017 at 10:30 AM.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 9:54 AM
    • 16,072 Posts
    • 20,104 Thanks
    Redx
    your personal attack on me above is disgusting and against forum etiquette

    my point all along was that you have deprived all the other members here of a valuable resource, which was what a solicitor said in response to your quandary

    it was a rare insight into something useful that we could ALL learn from and the fact that YOU have saved that information for yourself is selfish because nobody else here , now or in the future, can learn from it

    at no time have I made a personal attack on you , just pointed out the facts as I see them, so the fact that YOU think its ok to diss other members in public is disgraceful , because you dont know me and you dont know my background or my issues , so you have made a judgment without any facts to support your hypothesis

    my complaint is the fact that the valuable information posted by others in that thread is now lost , its the same as when the information in the NEWBIES FAQ thread goes missing like it did recently due to maliciousness by one member here

    the fact that YOU havent learned to use a forum properly is not MY problem

    my disgust is at allowing all the LOC123 posts to be deleted, you had no right to do that, only to have your own posts deleted and any quotes reproduced in other replies which quote your own words

    I dont think LOC123 would be happy to know that all her posts are deleted on this matter , but you didnt bother to get her permission

    and you did not use the forum resources to get my posts edited either
    Last edited by Redx; 12-10-2017 at 9:56 AM.
    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
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Oct 17, 10:25 AM
    • 1,260 Posts
    • 2,141 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    There was some information on the original thread started by the OP which, if found by the PPC, would actively have worked against him. We therefore had an off forum discussion about some issues he had raised yesterday. I can't really say what they were because then that highlights the issue.


    The OP thought he was doing the right thing to delete the whole thread and start again.


    The OP wants advice on what to run at POPLA. I have advised him what to run in proceedings, but the two can be very different because arguments that win at POPLA will not win in court, and I never focus on POPLA appeals.


    For the benefit of anyone coming to this thread, I advised yesterday:


    1. there is a pre-existing contract between driver and landowner (uni). It has all the elements of a contract - offer, acceptance, consideration. Those are the terms which govern his/her right to park.


    2. the contract at 1. didn't mention any PPC or further t&cs. But it did mention the right to issue a pcn if the permit was not displayed.


    3. I don't know what quality the permit was - eg if it was a small flimsy bit of paper prone to flipping over/falling off the dash.


    3. I say the contractual arguments are very similar to those I ran in this one: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5638268. Although that was a staff car park, the principles are the same. Not all of the facts will apply though (the timeline is very specific as to when each set of t&cs was given to the driver and when the original contract was entered into).


    4. So the contract was entered into at the time driver applied for the permit. The only terms are those on the website that (s)he signed up to. The PPC cannot come along and later add t&cs by way of signage. The driver was already entitled to park there according to the contract with the uni. The PPC cannot offer him further or new terms in respect of rights he already has.


    5. These contractual arguments will not apply if, for instance, the driver on the day was NOT the permit-holder. Because the contract is between permit holder and the uni. Anyone else driving the car would be subject to the advertised t&cs on site (ie the PPCs) - you then have all the general arguments about adequate signage, whether the wording is capable of offering a contract etc.


    6. I don't know if POFA has been complied with, in order to make the OP liable as keeper.


    7. The uni t&cs say that they can issue a pcn, but don't define what the charge could be, so I think this clause must be void for uncertainty, or the court could impute a term to give it efficacy. If it did the latter, I think the court would say any charge had to be reasonable, given that the university's aim is not to make a commercial profit (unlike in Beavis). Even if the uni is entitled to issue a pcn, that right is the university's, not the PPC's, and so the PPC must have been acting as the university's agent, not in its own right, so I say it has no locus standi to bring proceedings in its own name.


    Hope this helps.
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 12th Oct 17, 10:29 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    Thanks very much LOC123, you have restored my faith in the forum. I will update the thread with future developments.

    I sent a strongly worded contention to the Uni as a 'last chance' for them to contact the PPC and cancel the charge. If they cannot or do not do this, then I will appeal to POPLA having already drafted an appeal.

    Is anyone willing to scrutinise my POPLA appeal? I've cut it down to 8 (!!) pages. I'm grateful for any assistance.

    EDIT regarding the permit itself. It is a normal flimsy piece of paper, which was supplied with a self-adhesive wallet. The permit holder didn't want to stick it to the windscreen as their view of the road would have been in their view permanently unnecessarily obstructed - the t&c's which the permit holder signed up to do not state where, or how, the permit should be displayed, or that it should be displayed continuously, see clause below:

    "Any authorised user wishing to park a vehicle must display an up-to-date permit."

    The evidence I have includes a photograph, taken from outside of the vehicle looking "in" through the window, of the permit clearly displayed in the footwell of the vehicle. This may sound like I am trying to contend a "loophole" but it is fact - the t&c's don't say it has to be displayed clearly, or in the windscreen.

    And in any case the entity trying to bring the PCN is not party to the contract therefore cannot enforce any part of it (unless they prove landowner authority - perhaps?).
    Last edited by yorkshirebloke; 12-10-2017 at 10:36 AM.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Oct 17, 10:40 AM
    • 1,260 Posts
    • 2,141 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Even if they have landowner authority, the right under the permit t&cs is for the uni to issue a pcn (for an unspecified amount), so I say that they can only act as the uni's agent and not in their own right (so can't bring proceedings - not that they won't try).


    I think it would be implied that "displaying" would be clearly displayed - ie in the windscreen - but if you can show it was clearly visible then that might (or might not) work.


    What I'm just not sure about is distinguishing between good POPLA arguments and a good court defence.


    Did I post my defence in my parking thread on your thread yesterday? I'm happy to repost it here as it is a useful document for people in this sort of situation.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Oct 17, 10:42 AM
    • 1,260 Posts
    • 2,141 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    1. The Defendant admits that [s]he was the driver of a xxxxx, registration number xxxx on the relevant date.

    2. The Defendant denies that [s]he is liable for the entirety of the Claim for the reasons set out below.

    3. No contract was entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant.

    4. The Defendant did enter into a contract for parking, but it was with [his/her] employer and not the Claimant, as follows:
    4.1 On xxxx the Claimant entered into an agreement with [his/her] employer Admiral Plc (“Admiral”) by which Admiral granted [him/her] the right to park in its staff car park in return for a payment of £50 per calendar month (“the Agreement”);
    4.2 The terms of the Agreement were set out in a written document which the Defendant signed on the same date (“the Contract”)
    4.3 The Contract recorded and contained all of the terms of the Agreement. Inter alia, it contained “conditions of parking” which referred to a “car-parking card” which would be given to the Defendant. No terms other than those set out in the Contract formed part of the Agreement between the Defendant and Admiral.

    5. The Defendant believes that at the relevant time the Claimant may have been a party to a contract with Admiral by which the Claimant agreed to provide car parking spaces for Admiral’s staff and to manage the use of those spaces in order to prevent unauthorized parking and by which Admiral agreed to pay the Claimant. However, the Defendant does not know whether it was the Claimant or another company which was a party to that contract, nor does [s]he know the terms of that contract and the rights granted to the Claimant by it. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of the contract and its terms.

    6. The Defendant did not enter into any contract with the Claimant in relation to the exercise of [his/her] rights to park under the Agreement and the Contract, or in relation to any other matter, and the Claimant therefore has no cause of action against the Defendant.

    7. The Defendant cannot have entered into any contract with the Claimant, because the Claimant cannot have made any offer of parking to [him/her] – [s]he already had the right to park by virtue of the Agreement and Contract with Admiral. To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, the Defendant did not accept it. Furthermore, no consideration flowed between the Claimant and Defendant (the Defendant already having the parking rights, for which [s]he had agreed to, and did, pay Admiral.

    8. The Defendant admits that [s]he was given a piece of paper containing the Claimant’s “terms and conditions” for the use of Admiral’s staff car park, along with a permit (the “car-parking card” referred to in the Contract) and a permit disc holder. This was given to [him/her] by a member of Admiral's Facilities Department after [s]he had entered into the Agreement with Admiral and signed the Contract. When [s]he was given the Claimant’s terms and conditions, the Defendant had already acquired the right to park in the staff car park, subject only to the terms set out in the Contract. Therefore, the terms and conditions cannot have formed part of that Agreement/Contract. Neither can the Defendant have entered into any further contract with the Claimant because there was no offer made, no acceptance of any offer and no consideration flowed between the Claimant and the Defendant. The terms and conditions did not therefore bind the Defendant.

    9. The Claimant’s terms and conditions required the permit to be displayed in a highly prescribed manner on the windscreen of the car using a “permit disc holder” which was stated as provided with the terms and conditions. The Defendant was provided with this disc holder by Admiral at the same time as the terms and conditions (in other words, after the Agreement had been entered into and the Contract signed). It is admitted that the Defendant used the permit disc holder, but [s]he did so purely because it was a convenient method of displaying her permit and keeping it safe, and not because of any obligation to do so.

    10. It is admitted that the car park contained a sign or signs which the Defendant recalls stated that it was to be used only by permit-holders/authorized users and a warning that unauthorized users would be charged £100. It is denied that such signage made any offer to the Defendant, because its wording forbade parking for those not displaying a permit, rather than offering it, and those who had permits were already authorized by Admiral to park there. In the alternative, the signage did not make an offer which was capable of acceptance because it was cluttered, in small lettering (particularly the reference to the £100 charge) and the terms of any offer were unclear. The Claimant’s intention was not to make a genuine offer, the main purpose of the wording was to deter unauthorized parking by attempting to impose a penalty upon those who did not have a permit.

    11. To the extent that the signage made an offer, the Defendant did not accept it because [s]he was already entitled to park in the car park, and [s]he took the warning in the signage to apply only to unauthorized users – it was clear to [him/her] that the sign was intended as a deterrent. The Defendant also recalls that such signage was, however, not in the name of the Claimant, but another company (Vehicle Control Services Ltd) and puts the Claimant to full proof of the signage.

    12. It is denied that the Defendant was obliged by the Agreement or the Contract, nor by any contract with the Claimant, to display the permit in the manner prescribed in the Claimant’s terms and conditions, or its signage, or at all. Nor was the Defendant obliged to pay a charge for failing to display the permit (either to Admiral or to the Claimant or any other entity). At no time did the Defendant accept the Claimant’s terms and conditions or any offer made by the signage and, as stated above, [s]he used the permit disc holder to display the permit only for [his/her] own convenience.

    13. To the extent that any offer was made by the Claimant, the Defendant did not accept it by parking, and no consideration flowed, because [s]he was already entitled to park in the staff car park.

    14. The Defendant was required by Admiral to provide [his/her] car registration number when [s]he signed the Contract, and therefore had a reasonable belief that if there was any issue over the authenticity of her permit, or the manner in which it was displayed, or if there was any other issue relating to [his/her] use of the staff car park, Admiral and/or the Claimant would be able to establish that [his/her] car belonged to a permit-holder authorized by Admiral to use the staff car park.

    15. In the alternative, should it be determined that the Defendant did enter into a contract with the Claimant, the terms of which were set out in the Claimant’s terms and conditions, the Defendant denies that [s]he breached its terms because [s]he displayed the permit at all times and used reasonable endeavors to do so in the manner required by the Claimant’s terms and conditions (namely by using the permit disc holder). It was the Claimant which made it impossible for the Defendant to fully comply with those obligations because the permit disc holder it had supplied was not fit for purpose, therefore frustrating any contract (or this element of it). It must have been an implied term of any such contract that the permit disc holder, which the Defendant was required to use to display her permit, was fit for purpose and that the Defendant could rely on it to remain stuck to the windscreen when she was away from the vehicle. Alternatively, the court has the power to impute such a term to the contract in order to give it efficacy. The Claimant breached this implied term by providing a permit disc holder which came away from the windscreen, with no prior warning, when the car was parked and the Defendant was not in it. On the date in question, the Defendant left her vehicle parked with the permit disc holder affixed to the left hand side of the windscreen (with the permit in it). However, at some time after [s]he had left the vehicle, the permit disc holder fell off the windscreen and landed on the dashboard, where it remained until [s]he returned to the car at the end of the working day. Throughout the period of parking, the permit was, however, clearly visible through the windscreen because it could be seen in the permit disc holder lying face up on the dashboard. It would have been visible to the attendant who issued the parking charge notice.

    16. In the alternative, should it be determined that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant and that s[]he did breach its terms, the Claimant’s terms and conditions failed to define what the amount of any “parking charge” would be, and this term must therefore be void for uncertainty. It is accepted that a “parking charge” of £100 was identified on the signage in the car park. However, the signage cannot have formed part of any contract which may have been created between the Claimant and the Defendant by the terms and conditions. The terms of the contract have to be clear at the time the contract is made. Terms cannot be added later, other than by way of a collateral or new contract – both contracts require an offer, acceptance and consideration. If a contract was formed, then it was formed when the terms and conditions and the permit were given to the Defendant, and not later when [s]he started to use the car park and read the signs.

    17. Should it be determined that the Claimant’s signage was capable of making an offer, such offer was not accepted by the Defendant, and there can have been no consideration, because [s]he had already been granted parking rights in the staff car park by Admiral (for which [s]he was paying £50 per calendar month) and the Claimant was already obliged to provide car parking spaces pursuant to its contract with Admiral.


    18. Alternatively, should it be determined that the Defendant did enter into a contract with the Defendant, the terms of which were set out in the Claimant’s signage (as opposed to its terms and conditions), the Defendant denies that [s]he breached its terms because she displayed the permit at all times in the front windscreen of her car, as required by the signage. Furthermore, as an onerous contractual term, special attention should have been drawn to the requirement to pay £100, but it was not and, again, it is therefore void (Thornton v Shoe LaneParking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2).


    19. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has already been remunerated for providing and managing the spaces in the Admiral staff car park, and that the £100 charge (to which unspecified charges of £54 have been inexplicably added) is an unrecoverable penalty which is unenforceable and is an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Claim is distinguished from the facts in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis: in that case, it was agreed that there was a contract between the driver and the Claimant, formed by prominent signage at the entrance to a car park which made a clear offer; the case turned on a unique set of facts regarding the location and interest of the landowner; strict compliance with the Claimant’s Code of Practice was paramount; the site was a retail park and there was a free parking licence offered; there was a “legitimate interest” in the contract/parking charges being enforced so that visitors did not overstay the two hour free period in the retail park so as to ensure a turnover of visitors to the retail units; there was a complex contractual arrangement by which the Claimant was not paid by the landowner and therefore had to make an income out of the management of the car parking. All of this together disengaged the “penalty rule”. None of those facts apply in this case - the charges claimed are quite clearly a penalty and are not recoverable. In addition, the Claimant’s compliance with its binding ATA AOS Code of Practice was deemed to be paramount in the Beavis case, whereas in this case the Claimant has breached its Code of Practice in several important respects. Compliance with the Code of Practice is a mandatory term and a condition of membership.

    20. The Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of all aspects of its claim, including:
    20.1 Its contractual right, granted by the landowner or lawful occupier of the land, to manage the car park where the Defendant was parked on the relevant date, to issue charges to vehicles and to pursue court proceedings in respect of such charges;
    20.2 Its contractual right, granted by the landowner or lawful occupier of the land, to issue charges to vehicles parked by permit-holders (and therefore authorized by the landowner/lawful occupier to park there) and to pursue court proceedings in respect of such charges
    20.3 The creation of a contract with the Defendant by either the terms and conditions or by the Claimant’s signage or by any other means, and the terms of such contract;
    20.4 The manner in which the Defendant has breached such contract;
    20.5 The loss suffered by the Claimant as a result of any breach(es);
    20.6 The signage displayed in the car park (the Defendant believes that the signage did not identify the Claimant, but another company known as Vehicle Control Services Limited – certainly this company is identified on the signage displayed in the adjoining Admiral car park), including the size of any signage, its location and height and any entrance signage;
    20.7 [His/Her] alleged failure to display [his/her] permit – the Defendant requires all photographs taken by the Claimant’s operative (some of which [s]he believes were taken from such an angle as to deliberately obscure the Permit on the dashboard of the vehicle);
    20.8 The unfit for purpose permit disc holder – the Defendant wishes to know how many of its charges have been defended or appealed by other drivers who were authorized users of the car park but whose permit disc holder had likewise fallen from the car windscreen;

    21. The Defendant also challenges the addition of [£54] in “contractual costs” and the interest of [£xxx]. The Claimant is put to full proof of the contractual term entitling it to add charges of [£54] to the sum claimed. In respect of the interest claimed, the court should not exercise its discretion to award interest where the Claimant has delayed by [x] years in bringing these proceedings.

    Data Protection Act breach and trespass

    22. For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use, process and retain them, and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing so. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750.

    23. The Claimant had no authority to place a parking charge notice on the Defendant’s vehicle and in doing so committed a trespass.

    24. The Defendant specifically reserves [his/her] rights in respect of these matters.

    DATED THIS TH DAY OF 2017

    Statement of Truth

    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

    Signed …………………………………….
    Xxxxxx


    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Oct 17, 10:43 AM
    • 1,260 Posts
    • 2,141 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Some of the facts won't apply to your case, but you will find parts of it useful and it may assist others. I never filed this Defence but had drafted it in readiness. I might have played around with it a bit more if I had to file it, but it gives you the gist.
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 12th Oct 17, 11:04 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    Thanks for the valuable info.

    I would be interested to hear from any POPLA experts whether I should bring the 'no contract between permit holder and PPC' to the crux of my argument.

    Currently my POPLA appeal is split into 7 sections as below - I won't elaborate on them in this post, but if someone could advise if this is a good template:

    1) Incorrect claimant – no contract between permit holder and operator
    2) No evidence that the appellant is the individual liable – Notice to Keeper not issued
    3) No evidence of landowner authority
    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, there is no clear delimitations of the car park area and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    5) No breach of the contract between permit holder and landowner
    6) Charge sought is not a valid pre-estimate of loss
    7) Wording on the PCN is incorrect
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 12th Oct 17, 11:17 AM
    • 1,260 Posts
    • 2,141 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    You might also consider, at the court stage, a counterclaim under the DPA and trespass to the vehicle.
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 14th Oct 17, 12:50 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    Could anyone look over my draft POPLA appeal for me? I've copied the wording below, hope it fits in one post!!

    POPLA appeal:


    As the keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice the operator issued against the mentioned vehicle. Please note that I was not the driver of the vehicle at the time and I am exercising my right to not name the driver.
    For clarity of terminology used in this appeal – “landowner” refers to the owner of the land which is a different entity to “Operator” which refers to the PPC.
    I believe the parking charge notice should be cancelled based on the following grounds:

    1) Incorrect claimant – no contract between permit holder and operator
    2) No evidence that the appellant is the individual liable – Notice to Keeper not issued
    3) No evidence of landowner authority
    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces, there is no clear delimitations of the car park area and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    5) No breach of the contract between permit holder and landowner
    6) Charge sought is not a valid pre-estimate of loss
    7) Wording on the PCN is incorrect

    1. Incorrect claimant

    I appeal to the assessor that the only contract which exists is between the permit holder and the landowner. This contract was formed when the permit holder applied for the permit via the landowner’s online permit application system. On this system, applicant is guided through several stages, one of which is entering the VRM (vehicle registration mark) of the vehicle they wish to assign the permit to. The final part of the application requires the applicant to tick a box confirming they agree to the following statement: “I have read and understood the parking policy at the university , and agree to abide by the regulations”. There is no mention at any time in the application process of any other terms and conditions which would apply to the contract, i.e. other policy documents, or that any signage within the car park(s) forms part of the contract, etc. Indeed there is no mention of car park signage whatsoever in the parking policy document, let alone any clauses which state signage must be obeyed, understood or accepted. I appeal to the assessor that the only terms and conditions the permit holder can be contractually held to are the ones outlined within the parking policy document. Attached to this appeal is the full parking policy as downloaded from the landowner’s website at the time the permit application was submitted. For avoidance of doubt I appeal to the assessor that the contract to park on the land is formed based on the applicant’s acceptance and understanding of the parking policy, and the issuance of the permit by the landowner – evidence the permit was issued can be seen in the attached screenshot of the confirmation email recieved on 30th August 2017, and attached photo of the permit.

    I appeal to the assessor that a Parking Charge Notice (breach of contract) can only be pursued by a party to the contract and if a breach of the contract has occurred by another party. The landowner did not issue this PCN; the PCN was issued by a third party (the operator). As no contract exists between the permit holder and the operator then the PCN should considered as void on these grounds alone.

    2. No evidence that the appellant is the individual liable for the PCN

    The operator has failed to meet the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). A Notice to Keeper has not been issued and the driver is unidentified. I am exercising my right to not name the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle I cannot be held liable for the PCN unless a Notice To Keeper is issued and is in full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which it has not. Therefore, I appeal to the assessor that as the appellant there is no evidence I am liable for the PCN.

    3.No evidence of landowner authority
    As the 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
    However, in light of the evidence provided in section 1, I appeal to the assessor that even if landowner authority is evidenced, the contract to park on the land already existed between the permit holder and the landowner, and contract law dictates that terms and conditions of the contract cannot be retrospectively changed by any party.

    4.
    The signs at this car park fail the test of 'large lettering' and ‘prominence’, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    I appeal to the assessor that the permit holder did not enter into a contract with the operator as they already had a contract with the landowner which permitted them to park on the land as outlined in section (1) and also section (5) below. If the operator wishes to contend that a contract did exist, formed by signage at the location and the permit holder’s act of parking on the land, and the assessor feels this contention is valid, then I appeal to the assessor to consider the following appeal regarding signage at the location; in that situation I also appeal to the assessor to consider sections (6) and (7) in this appeal.

    The unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.
    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and the notice of the parking charge is in small print. There is nothing at all on the signage which states a contract is formed or implied by parking at the location as you can see by the attached photographic evidence.

    There was no contract nor agreement on the signage at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any/all 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 placed at significant height (at least 7ft from ground to the bottom of the sign), unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. 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. 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.
    Furthermore, the only prominent wording on the signage that is displayed in the car park is “Permit Holders Only”. Even if the driver saw the signage upon entering or parking in the car park (which they did not), I appeal to the assessor that the prominence of that wording and that wording alone would give the driver, as a holder of a valid permit, satisfaction that they have met the criteria to park there without further charge. Attached evidence is a photo of the signage, taken by the operator’s employee. Note the angle of the photo – this goes some way to prove the height of the signage (in comparison to the door/window of the property behind) – is too high and illegible even as a pedestrian. I appeal to the assessor that it is impossible for a driver entering the car park and bringing the vehicle to a standstill, even adjacent to one of these high signs, to read and understand the full wording on the sign.

    Photographic evidence provided by the operator does not show the vehicle and sign in the same image. I contend that in this case, there are no signs within a reasonable distance of the parking bay the vehicle was parked in – and that the driver did not pass any readable signs upon entering the car park. If it is argued that the driver has entered into a contract by parking the vehicle, then I appeal to the assessor that the driver did not have sufficient opportunity to read and accept any signage before the act of parking the vehicle.
    The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader.
    The Regulations state, at 13(1)(a), that the information listed in Schedule 2 must be given or made available to the consumer in a clear and comprehensible manner. The Claimant’s notice fails to comply with various clauses of Schedule 2, as follows:
    (k) where applicable, the trader’s complaint handling policy;
    (o) where under regulation 28, 36 or 37 there is no right to cancel or the right to cancel may be lost, the information that the consumer will not benefit from a right to cancel, or the circumstances under which the consumer loses the right to cancel;

    (r) the existence of relevant codes of conduct, as defined in regulation 5(3)(b) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, and how copies of them can be obtained, where applicable;

    (s) the duration of the contract, where applicable, or, if the contract is of indeterminate duration or is to be extended automatically, the conditions for terminating the contract;


    (t) where applicable, the minimum duration of the consumer’s obligations under the contract;

    (x) where applicable, the possibility of having recourse to an out-of-court complaint and redress mechanism, to which the trader is subject, and the methods for having access to it.
    Due to these significant breaches of the Regulations, it is submitted that I cannot be held contractually liable, according to the wording of the Regulations at 13 (1) “Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader must …”.

    5.No breach of the contract between permit holder and landowner.

    This section details parts of the contract between permit holder and landowner relevant to displaying of the permit, and parts of the contract which relate to “penalties”. I appeal to the assessor that the operator cannot hold the permit holder to account on any part of the contract as they are not party to the contract, but if it is argued and decided that the operator is able to do so on the landowner’s behalf, then I would like to explain to the assessor how even in that circumstance, the permit holder did indeed meet all contractual obligations placed upon them.

    Section 3.1 of the contract states – displaying a valid permit – it is unclear to where or how, in/on the vehicle the permit should be displayed. There is no stipulation that the driver must display the permit continuously whilst parked.

    Section 7 – the section referring to Parking Charge Notices – I argue is void due to uncertainty. There is no mention of any monetary amounts either estimated or actual, which may be due from the permit holder, in the event the permit holder breaches any terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore the £90 sought in this instance appears to have been plucked from the air. I argue that the permit holder cannot be binded to a section of the contract which, due to lack of information and specifics, should be considered void due to uncertainty.
    Despite the above, I appeal to the assessor that the vehicle was parked in obedience with the terms and conditions of all sections of the contract. The valid permit was placed on the window when exiting the vehicle. Upon returning to the vehicle the driver noticed the permit had fallen into the footwell which they can only surmise happened with a gust of wind as they exited the vehicle, unbeknown to them. However, as you can see by the attached photographic evidence taken on the day, the permit was actually displayed in the footwell and visible to a person looking into the vehicle from the driver’s window. The attached evidence is a photograph taken from outside the vehicle.
    The parking policy states only that “authorised users wishing to park a vehicle must display an up-to-date permit” and does not stipulate where on/in the vehicle this must be to avoid the undefined “penalties” described in section 7. It is argued, then, that the permit was on display to any reasonable person who was able to glance through the window, as the parking operator’s attendant demonstrated he could do by taking photographs of the inside of the dashboard through the windscreen. I am therefore satisfied that the displaying of the permit in this situation meets the criteria set out in the parking policy, section 3.1, therefore contractual obligations were obeyed.

    For avoidance of doubt, the landowner is not pursuing any charges under the contract. The operator is the one attempting to charge the permit holder via the PCN but I appeal to the assessor that they are not party to the contract. I have only included this section in the event it is decided that the operator is able to act on behalf of the landowner – which I believe it is not - and are arguing that the contract between permit holder and landowner was breached – which it was not.
    >continued below>
    • yorkshirebloke
    • By yorkshirebloke 14th Oct 17, 12:53 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    yorkshirebloke
    >continued from above>


    6. The charge sought is not a valid pre-estimate of loss
    Even if a contract is deemed to exist between the permit holder/driver and the operator (which I deny is the case), I appeal to the assessor that the sum of £90 is not a genuine and valid pre-estimate of loss.
    Neither the operator or landowner have provided clarity on losses they have supposedly suffered as a result of the vehicle being parked where it was and having a valid permit. I put them to proof to provide evidence of estimate of loss which amounts to the charge being sought.
    There was already a pre-paid permit in place for the vehicle and the permit holder entered the VRM as part of the online permit application process. The landowner must have this on their records and to deny this would be disingenuous as the system is electronic and should keep records for transactions as recent as the last few months, even just for accountability purposes. I enclose a clear photograph of the valid permit and of the email received by the permit holder from the landowner to confirm that the permit actually exists.
    Therefore, the vehicle parked where it was, even if the permit was not displayed (which it was as evidenced by Part 2 and the attached photographs), I contend that there was no (zero) financial or other loss caused to the landowner, nor to the operator -but in any case I contend that a contract was never formed with the operator in the first place.


    7. Wording on the Parking Charge Notice is incorrect
    The reason for issue on the PCN states, quote “parked without valid parking ticket/permit” – see attached photo evidence.
    As you can see by the attached evidence, the vehicle was parked with a valid permit in place. Indeed the permit was displayed in the footwell and visible to anyone standing outside the vehicle as also evidenced by the attached photographs.
    If there is a contract deemed to be in place with the operator (which I deny), and it is argued that the signage is sufficient (which I deny), then surely the wording on the PCN voids the reason. Note that it does not state “permit not displayed” or “permit not clearly displayed”. For clarification and avoidance of doubt the wording on the PCN states “parked without valid parking ticket/permit”. If the operator is pursuing on the basis that a permit was not displayed then the PCN should clearly state that, and as it doesn’t, I contend the reason for issue given on the PCN is invalid. Again just for avoidance of all doubt, I deny any contract is or was in place between the permit holder and the operator and therefore I consider the PCN to be null and void in any case – I appeal that no contract exists to be breached.

    I ask in good faith as a law-abiding citizen that this case be considered by the assessor. I will happily clarify any points, sections, and evidence if it is required of me. If the operator has any further evidence they wish to present then I would ask that this is shared so as the appellant I have an opportunity to consider it.

    Thankyou for your time.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any advice on the above would be fantastic. I've gone with a 'layered' approach - arguing that a contract doesn't exist between permit holder and PPC, but on top of that arguing that if a contract "does" exist, why the claim is invalid. Is this a good idea?
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

2,219Posts Today

7,371Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin