Highview Parking - Charge Notice

Coupon-mad

AMk wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that POPLA only consider appeals on the grounds of misconduct and definitely not on Contract Law or mitigating circumstances? Is the basis of my appeal to POPLA not likely to be mitigating circumstances and/or as you say Contract Law?

Misconduct, if you mean a breach of the BPA code of practice, then yes that's an important point for POPLA. The reduction being less than 40% is just one breach and you may well find more if you read the BPA COP on the BPA website (not that the BPA cares...but POPLA should do - and has done before).

Contract law, yes, you can use that and POPLA are supposed to consider valid points (such as if the signs are inadequate/unreadable, much too high, unlit, not at the entrance, etc.). Anything like that can show that no contract has been formed with the driver who couldn't possibly have been expected to see the t&cs. Also demand that Highview's evidence includes a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier as you also want to scrutinise that for BPA Code compliance.

(Mitigating circs, you are right, POPLA cannot consider those).

anovis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Misconduct, if you mean a breach of the BPA code of practice, then yes that's an important point for POPLA. The reduction being less than 40% is just one breach and you may well find more if you read the BPA COP on the BPA website (not that the BPA cares...but POPLA should do - and has done before).

Contract law, yes, you can use that and POPLA are supposed to consider valid points (such as if the signs are inadequate/unreadable, much too high, unlit, not at the entrance, etc.). Anything like that can show that no contract has been formed with the driver who couldn't possibly have been expected to see the t&cs. Also demand that Highview's evidence includes a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier as you also want to scrutinise that for BPA Code compliance.

(Mitigating circs, you are right, POPLA cannot consider those).

Thanks for the clarity; appreciate the distinction you're making. I wrongly interpreted it to mean that I couldn't appeal to POPLA. Can see now that I can.

I have spent a lot of time yesterday reading through many contributions on the net and did come across the MSE quotes you have included. A lot of it seemed dated and the Highview notice referenced "new law" effective 1/10/13 which threw me off track. Earlier in this thread "ManxRed" and "trisontana" clarified what this new law is about.

I just can't believe how this is unfolding & apparently it's legal otherwise they won't be so blatant!

trisontana

Now that you have "seen the light", please spread the word about the private parking "industry" to everyone you know. That way they won't be conned into paying these unenforceable charges. Knowledge is power!

anovis

I've decided to challenge but have to admit I am nervous.

I am very careful when it comes to this type of thing because I can ill afford their extortionate charges. I could not believe how I missed any notices about over-stay charges at this carpark and so today went back to see what signs were around.

I can now see why Highview are being so arrogant!

There is a Yellow notice board at the entrance and this is absolutely genuine.... as I entered their drive there were two people walking on the road & remember getting irritated that they were leisurely walking on the entrance lane when there was a footpath on the exit side. I hooted & they ignored me. This was the reason I missed the sign at the entrance. Highview will most definitely have these two on their CCTV.

In the carpark there are 3 Yellow signs dotted around and from where I was parked, it's easy to see how I missed them. However, as is my way, as I left the car I set my mobile alarm for 2-hrs which is what I thought the limit was. Again, they will have this on their camera if they monitor the whole area. So know for a fact that I was back within that time.

Given these circumstances and their confidence - do you think I still stand a reasonable chance?

Coupon-mad

Of course you have a chance to win at POPLA if you word it right with lots of challenge points and questions to make them jump through hoops and fall over! And include a paragraph demanding the contract with the owner/occupier to be shown to POPLA as you 'believe it is non compiant with the BPA code of practice and doesn't give Highview the status to issue these 'tickets' when they are purely a profit-making exercise and Highview have made no loss themselves, whatsoever.'

I just sent this sort of pm advice to another poster which is the sort of challenge I am now recommending (not an 'appeal' and not even saying who was driving):

See post #65 here which tells you what has happened with 2 victims who both did a 'legal challenge' sort of letter first to the PPC and then Broadsword helped both to try different things when rejected:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...st=60&start=60

In fact if you read that whole thread it's a very useful to you. I think I would try the approach that Broadsword helped 'victim 2' with - which was a legal challenge as described in that thread (maybe change some words so it's NOT a template).

Just make it full of questions about their status and right to issue tickets there, point out the omissions with the signs that you 'have gone back and looked at now' (do not say who was driving, no need). Demand a copy of the contract with the landowner, type of camera used and % error rate of that camera because the registered keeper cannot know what happened on a day a few weeks ago and cannot be expected to just believe a sudden unsolicited letter from a non-statutory authority, demanding money, anything like that - have fun with it!

The idea is to send a letter full of questions demanding answers - not an 'appeal'.

You do NOT even have to talk about who was driving or whether the car overstayed at all - so be careful to stick to your questions only, not a summary of that day, not 'I did this' more like 'I see you are alleging the vehicle has stayed a few minutes longer than your alleged rules but as the registered keeper how can I possibly know what those rules may have been and what authority you think you have to impose them? But what I do want to know is...{then your barrage of questions!}.

Broadsword has found that the PPC in his quoted cases, PE, then rejected the 'appeal' (as they saw it), did not answer most questions and also did not supply a POPLA code which then leaves them DEAD in the water.

If the PPC ever did step beyond the usual letter chain in your case they'd be stuffed because your defence to any small claim would be that you appealed both in good faith but the firm did not answer your questions (and also denied your right to a POPLA appeal - if Highview don't cough up the Code).

Your case wasn't in Scotland was it?

But that won't happen with Highview anyway who have never gone beyond the junk mail chain. See the pics of all the letters in the pre-October old link, on the 'PPC letter chains' sticky thread. That shows the extent of Highview's rubbish threatograms, then they just fizzle out and move onto a more vulnerable victim.

trisontana

You will get plenty of support on here to help beat these scammers. Don't worry!

anovis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Of course you have a chance to win at POPLA if you word it right with lots of challenge points and questions to make them jump through hoops and fall over! And include a paragraph demanding the contract with the owner/occupier to be shown to POPLA as you 'believe it is non compiant with the BPA code of practice and doesn't give Highview the status to issue these 'tickets' when they are purely a profit-making exercise and Highview have made no loss themselves, whatsoever.'

I just sent this sort of pm advice to another poster which is the sort of challenge I am now recommending (not an 'appeal' and not even saying who was driving):

See post #65 here which tells you what has happened with 2 victims who both did a 'legal challenge' sort of letter first to the PPC and then Broadsword helped both to try different things when rejected:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...st=60&start=60

In fact if you read that whole thread it's a very useful to you. I think I would try the approach that Broadsword helped 'victim 2' with - which was a legal challenge as described in that thread (maybe change some words so it's NOT a template).

Just make it full of questions about their status and right to issue tickets there, point out the omissions with the signs that you 'have gone back and looked at now' (do not say who was driving, no need). Demand a copy of the contract with the landowner, type of camera used and % error rate of that camera because the registered keeper cannot know what happened on a day a few weeks ago and cannot be expected to just believe a sudden unsolicited letter from a non-statutory authority, demanding money, anything like that - have fun with it!

The idea is to send a letter full of questions demanding answers - not an 'appeal'.

You do NOT even have to talk about who was driving or whether the car overstayed at all - so be careful to stick to your questions only, not a summary of that day, not 'I did this' more like 'I see you are alleging the vehicle has stayed a few minutes longer than your alleged rules but as the registered keeper how can I possibly know what those rules may have been and what authority you think you have to impose them? But what I do want to know is...{then your barrage of questions!}.

Broadsword has found that the PPC in his quoted cases, PE, then rejected the 'appeal' (as they saw it), did not answer most questions and also did not supply a POPLA code which then leaves them DEAD in the water.

If the PPC ever did step beyond the usual letter chain in your case they'd be stuffed because your defence to any small claim would be that you appealed both in good faith but the firm did not answer your questions (and also denied your right to a POPLA appeal - if Highview don't cough up the Code).

Your case wasn't in Scotland was it?

But that won't happen with Highview anyway who have never gone beyond the junk mail chain. See the pics of all the letters in the pre-October old link, on the 'PPC letter chains' sticky thread. That shows the extent of Highview's rubbish threatograms, then they just fizzle out and move onto a more vulnerable victim.

Thanks. Before starting my own thread here, I did read a lot of this type of exchanges on the MSE, Pepipoo and The Consumer Action Group sites.

It all got confusing in the end in terms of how best to proceed although I did end up deciding that I can't (shouldn't) just roll over. I don't remember the particular thread you have provided link for so will go back and read that one again.

I am in England (the car park is near Wembley Stadium).

Unfortunately, in my email appeal to Highview, I have obviously by implication admitted to being the driver. Naive I know now! In their curt response they have provided me with the POPLA code.

I am nervous because I am a carer of someone with severe disability; not that that means I deserve any special treatment but life is stressful enough and days are short. Everyone (quite rightly) keeps stressing the importance of right approach & right wording. I absolutely agree that both of those things will dictate whether I succeed or not.

I have been trying to decide how best to kick this off so that it comes to a relatively swift end.

I will read the thread you have mentioned and absolutely have to initiate the challenge today/tomorrow.

I am really grateful that you have taken the time to provide all of this information - Thank you.

Stroma

As tris said above we can help you with this, there is nothing to worry or stress yourself with these jokers, popla is just text that can be submitted online. If you lose just ignore the outcome as its not binding on you, probably why they were curt with you.

anovis

ManxRed wrote: »

You could appeal to POPLA and cost them £27 plus VAT. The decision is binding on them but not on you, so even if you lose you can continue to ignore them afterwards if you want.

We might be able to help you construct a robust appeal to POPLA that ought to win, but to be honest POPLA aren't as independent as they would like people to believe and do occasionally come up with the odd baffling decision in favour of the parking company. Still, as I say, their decision is not binding on you.

Hi ManxRed, not at all sure what you meant by "We might be able to help you construct a robust appeal to POPLA" but if you are still willing I would appreciate some help. Even if it is just bullet pointer which I can tailor.

anovis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Of course you have a chance to win at POPLA if you word it right with lots of challenge points and questions to make them jump through hoops and fall over! And include a paragraph demanding the contract with the owner/occupier to be shown to POPLA as you 'believe it is non compiant with the BPA code of practice and doesn't give Highview the status to issue these 'tickets' when they are purely a profit-making exercise and Highview have made no loss themselves, whatsoever.'

I just sent this sort of pm advice to another poster which is the sort of challenge I am now recommending (not an 'appeal' and not even saying who was driving):

See post #65 here which tells you what has happened with 2 victims who both did a 'legal challenge' sort of letter first to the PPC and then Broadsword helped both to try different things when rejected:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...st=60&start=60

In fact if you read that whole thread it's a very useful to you. I think I would try the approach that Broadsword helped 'victim 2' with - which was a legal challenge as described in that thread (maybe change some words so it's NOT a template).

Just make it full of questions about their status and right to issue tickets there, point out the omissions with the signs that you 'have gone back and looked at now' (do not say who was driving, no need). Demand a copy of the contract with the landowner, type of camera used and % error rate of that camera because the registered keeper cannot know what happened on a day a few weeks ago and cannot be expected to just believe a sudden unsolicited letter from a non-statutory authority, demanding money, anything like that - have fun with it!

The idea is to send a letter full of questions demanding answers - not an 'appeal'.

You do NOT even have to talk about who was driving or whether the car overstayed at all - so be careful to stick to your questions only, not a summary of that day, not 'I did this' more like 'I see you are alleging the vehicle has stayed a few minutes longer than your alleged rules but as the registered keeper how can I possibly know what those rules may have been and what authority you think you have to impose them? But what I do want to know is...{then your barrage of questions!}.

Broadsword has found that the PPC in his quoted cases, PE, then rejected the 'appeal' (as they saw it), did not answer most questions and also did not supply a POPLA code which then leaves them DEAD in the water.

If the PPC ever did step beyond the usual letter chain in your case they'd be stuffed because your defence to any small claim would be that you appealed both in good faith but the firm did not answer your questions (and also denied your right to a POPLA appeal - if Highview don't cough up the Code).

Your case wasn't in Scotland was it?

But that won't happen with Highview anyway who have never gone beyond the junk mail chain. See the pics of all the letters in the pre-October old link, on the 'PPC letter chains' sticky thread. That shows the extent of Highview's rubbish threatograms, then they just fizzle out and move onto a more vulnerable victim.

Coupon-mad - Thanks again! Taken me all morning but I have now been through the whole of the above referenced thread.

To anyone else trying to fight their way out of this jungle ... I would also recommend the following site:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

Once you get your head around the subject through forums like this one - & believe me it takes some doing! - the parkingcowboys site presents a very clear list of what is relevant from a legal viewpoint. It's a good basis for a process of elimination to decide what is applicable to your particular set of circumstances.