Parking charge notice

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Ok this URL

1. You will see a reference to paragraphs in the Schedule in Appendix C particularly tat schedule's point 12. This is the Govt requirement that PPCs follow the signage standards set up by the BPA

Not quite. To get details of the registered keeper members of a Government Accredited Trade Association (ATA) may ask the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for details of the vehicle keeper. Currently the only DVLA ATA for parking companies is the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). To be part of the AOS companies must agree to follow the BPA Code of Practice however most of them are in breach of the CoP at least in some minor way with ticketing or signage.

Paragraph 12 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 allows for the Government to implement regulations to prescribe requirements as to the notices e.g. size, form, number etc However as yet no regulations have been implemented so there is no legal definition of the signage. Even if there were the signage is only of relevance to pursuing the registered keeper rather than the driver (as is the whole of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012) & nothing at all to do with whether those charges are fair or even legal under contract law or for trespass.

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

Not quite.

Paragraph 12 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 allows for the Government to implement regulations to prescribe requirements as to the notices e.g. size, form, number etc However as yet no regulations have been implemented so there is no legal definition of the signage. Even if there were the signage is only of relevance to pursuing the registered keeper rather than the driver (as is the whole of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012) & nothing at all to do with whether those charges are fair or even legal under contract law or for trespass.

Yes, the first bit is correct. But the BPA COP does specify sign and writing sizes and members of the AOS are supposed to be compliant.

If not, then we await POPLA rulings on whether or not infringements are a deal-breaker, but so far they seem to be adhering more to BPA COP than contract law.

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Yes, the first bit is correct. But the BPA COP does specify sign and writing sizes and members of the AOS are supposed to be compliant.

If not, then we await POPLA rulings on whether or not infringements are a deal-breaker, but so far they seem to be adhering more to BPA COP than contract law.

I wanted to make sure that nobody believes that the BPA CoP has the force of law it doesn't The signage that they prescribe to my eye is quite inadequate as the type sizes are far too small to be read as you drive into a car park. Just because they quote 50mm or whatever in the CoP doesn't make it anything other than their own partial opinion as to what is adequate.

2ddesign

My efforts to date with the letter any advice welcome:

My Appeal statement

My letter explaining the circumstances and copy of the valid ticket were rejected. Although the time on the purchased ticket had 1 hour and 16 minutes left to run, it was on the dashboard as shown in their supplied photos.
So they acknowledge there was a ticket on the dash, but they have turned down my appeal and try to pass me an illegal penalty as punishment.

1) The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must 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. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In this case, VINCI has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £50 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that VINCI has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case. As the supplied ticket shows at the time an hour and 16minutes left to run.

2) The sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whether no permit was displayed or a car was parked over a white line.. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £50 on days 1 to 14, then £100 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by VINCI

3) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999):
Private Parking Company charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of those 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" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

4) Under the British Parking Association Operator Code of Practice that VINCI should adhere to it states that:

A8.2 Entrance signs, located at the entrance to the car
park, must tell drivers that the car park is managed
and that there are terms and conditions which they
must be aware of. Entrance signs must meet minimum
general principles and be in a standard format. The
size of the sign must take into account the anticipated
speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and follow
Department for Transport guidance.

Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in
intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read
and understand.

5a) Main entrance signage has this, which is not easy to read or understand:

” If you park in this car park, you will be liable to pay in full the applicable charges without set-off or deduction"

"no discount for prompt payment offered on the signage, that "up to" could mean anything from 1p - £100".

5b) Main sign at the entrance does not fulfill the code, as it states pp29:

Car park entered from higher speed road or using a length of access road at 25mph, text should be 90mm in height.
(See attached photos)

5c) Sign by the ticket machine only says"Valid Permit Holders must display a valid permit in the front windscreen at all time" It does not say "face upwards" as the main sign at the entrance says in very small type!

6) It is a requirement for the PPC to supply to POPLA a copy of the site agreement/contract with the owner/occupier, as I contend that:

a) It's not BPA Code of conduct compliant, and

b) It doesn't give VINCI Park the legal standing to allege trespass or to allege contract seeing as the consideration of the parking places is already expressly offered by the owner/occupier.

c) As the payment was made and the P&D ticket was displayed, there is no breach of contract either. So without trespass/loss, contractual agreement or breach of contract there is no merit at all to VINCI's charge.

7) It is my contention that VINCI Park do not adhere to the BPC code of conduct in the operation of this carpark in the use and design of its signs!

The Appellant therefore invites the Adjudicator to uphold the appeal, and to cancel the parking charge.

Guys_Dad

You have missed off that there is no discount for prompt payment offered on the signage, that "up to" could mean anything from 1p - £100,

Don't forget to demand your POPLA code if they refuse your appeal. Even they know they are in trouble with their signs, surely, after your letter hits them.

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

I wanted to make sure that nobody believes that the BPA CoP has the force of law it doesn't The signage that they prescribe to my eye is quite inadequate as the type sizes are far too small to be read as you drive into a car park. Just because they quote 50mm or whatever in the CoP doesn't make it anything other than their own partial opinion as to what is adequate.

May not have force of law in court, but when it is a club to hit them with in a POPLA adjudication, where it IS recognised, use it to your advantage.

2ddesign

Hi Guys dad adjusted letter as you suggested and altered some wording. I do have the POPLA code sent by VINCI Park.
Thank you for your comments:T

2ddesign:)

Coupon-mad

2ddesign wrote: »

Hi Guys dad adjusted letter as you suggested and altered some wording. I do have the POPLA code sent by VINCI Park.
Thank you for your comments:T

2ddesign:)

I would add in a requirement for the PPC to supply to POPLA a copy of the site agreement/contract with the owner/occupier, as you contend that:

a) it's not BPA CoP compliant*, and

b) it doesn't give Vinci the legal standing to allege trespass or to allege contract seeing as the consideration of the parking places is already expressly offered by the owner/occupier, and

c) as the payment was made and the P&D ticket was displayed there is no breach of contract either. So without trespass/loss, contractual agreement or breach of contract (which would by definition be a penalty and unenforceable anyway) there is no merit at all to Vinci's charge.





* re the BPA compliance you'd be guessing but it puts the PPC on the back foot to prove otherwise and forces POPLA to consider the point. It is not for you to prove it's non-compliant, if you just bung it in as an allegation then the onus shifts to the PPC to prove otherwise.

2ddesign

Hi All

Any more fine tuning of the letter wording before I send it off to POPLA?

Thanks

2ddesign:)

morgo444

Hi, I've been following your thread today as Ive just recvd a Parking Eye county court letter. I was wondering how your letter of appeal to POPLA went ?, cheers,