Appeal to PPC letter Aldi car park

bluealpaca

Well I got a reply from Parking eye, first one was a reminder and still offering the discount with no acknowledgement to my appeal letter.

Now ive just got their letter rejecting my appeal and they have included a POPLA form and code. Surprise surprise they never sent me copies of their contract with the land owners which proves they have permission to issue the parking notice.:D.
Oh and Parking Eye have 'as a gesture of goodwill' extended the 14 day reduction and given me another 14 days to pay at the reduced rate. ha! ha!! yeh right in their dreams !!!!

I would post the replies here if i knew how to.:o Will work on it.

Now I need some guidance how to complete the form from POPLA.

bluealpaca

This is what ive put together so far - any suggestions would be helpful.

I do not believe that I am liable for paying the parking charge to Parking Eye because of the following:

On entering the car park there are no signs indicating that automatic number plate recognition is being used at the site and that they will use my details to gain information about me from the DVLA. I believe that this is in breach the BPA Code.

When I appealed to Parking Eye I asked them to send me copies of their agreement with the land owner which proves they have authority to issue parking charge notices, they have failed to send me this proof.


I do not think that seventy pounds is any way a true reflection of any loss incurred, by the land owner, caused by me staying ten minutes longer in the car park. The cost for parking for 1.5 hours is nil, therefore, as the car park was only partially full at the time then the cost of loss incurred equates to nil.

Also I received the parking charge notice through the post from parking Eye on Monday 11th March seventeen days after the alleged parking event took place. As I understand it anyone intending to make these kinds of claims should do so within fourteen days.

Guys_Dad

bluealpaca wrote: »

This is what ive put together so far - any suggestions would be helpful.

I do not believe that I am liable for paying the parking charge to Parking Eye because of the following:

On entering the car park there are no signs indicating that automatic number plate recognition is being used at the site and that they will use my details to gain information about me from the DVLA. I believe that this is in breach the BPA Code. Too weak. Quote where this is in breach in the COP

When I appealed to Parking Eye I asked them to send me copies of their agreement with the land owner which proves they have authority to issue parking charge notices, they have failed to send me this proof.


I do not think that seventy pounds is any way a true reflection of any loss incurred, by the land owner, caused by me staying ten minutes longer in the car park. You don't POPLA does. Find a reference that backs your opinion up, say the Judge McIlwaine view in the Ibbotson case. Not a precedent, of course, but worth chucking in The cost for parking for 1.5 hours is nil, therefore, as the car park was only partially full at the time then the cost of loss incurred equates to nil.

I received the parking charge notice through the post from parking Eye on Monday 11th March seventeen days after the alleged parking event took place. As I understand it anyone intending to make these kinds of claims should do so within fourteen days. Same point as above. But this is actually specified in Schedule 4 of the POFA Paragraph 9.4, but please double check here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_CodeofPractice_2013_v1.pdf which contains the schedule in the appendices

With all these appeals, you should show that you know what you are talking about and actually quote the relevant sections so that the adjudicator must address any direct clauses or points of law you want to use, rather than the vague "I understand" which translates as "someone told me that".

Coupon-mad

I agree with the comments by Guy's Dad; you need some actual compelling small claim cases and the BPA Code of Practice to cite (Google them and read them, copy & paste a sentence or two from relevant parts of the CoP and the Ibbotson case as mentioned.

And it's not just about whether they have authority to issue parking notices, they would also need a contract that gives them the legal standing to 'enforce' any parking charge and take it to Court, etc. A notice is just a notice and they could quite easily produce for POPLA, a basic contract that allows them to issue bits of paper - and then your basic appeal above could lose. I do think your point abiout the 14 days is a good one though - except maybe they dated the fake PCN withion 14 days (did they?) in which case they could wriggle out of that point too.

And if they are alleging this is a contract matter then they need a site agreement with the landowner/occupier that specifically enables them to offer the parking spaces in the first place or there's no contract (no offer = no contract to accept on your part = null and void). So state that as a point in the appeal because in a free car park the spaces are already offered by Aldi.

And how about something about not seeing the signs so no contract exists (there's case law for that, can't recall the case though):

''If PE are alleging there was sufficient signage then I never saw it. In common with most people going shopping and using a free car park, you do not use any ticket machine, there's no P&D terms to read and in this sort of situation you are simply not expecting to see sneaky 'contractual signs' from a third party profit-making company - and I did not. Therefore there was simply no contract whatsoever between PE and myself - in a free car park one does not expect to pay anything so any signs would need to be very large and with large clear lettering, no small print, very well-lit and at a height where a driver could not fail to notice them. I say that this was not the case and indeed when I checked the car park again after getting the fake PCN out of the blue, I still found that to be the case, and as already mentioned, any CCTV warning signs were omitted completely.''

And add back in your previous sentence but I have tweaked it a bit:

'It is clearly a penalty and no representation of any losses suffered by the landowner. PE have not set out any evidence that the charge is a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' which it cannot possibly be anyway because the fake PCNs are the SOLE INCOME of PE - nothing whatsoever to do with loss (which cannot include normal business running costs of course). If PE are alleging this is a genuine loss situation then I require them to show POPLA that their income in this car park is NOT made up purely from the fake PCNs. Clearly every fake PCN cannot represent a loss or the company would not exist, no firm can run at a continual loss so any suggestion about a 'loss' should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Neither do they own the land so cannot allege trespass in any case, if that is the basis of this charge. PE have not bothered to tell me whether they are alleging trespass/loss or contract - but neither are applicable, as I have shown in this appeal.

As such, it is an unlawful penalty clearly designed purely for Parking Eye to make a profit, as in the Excel v Hetherington Jakeman small claim case, purely designed to frighten and intimidate genuine Aldi shoppers like myself. I ask POPLA to cancel the fake PCN.

bluealpaca

Thats great advice from you both, you certainly know the system.

Thank you
:-)