Minimum time allowed?

Dublindel

A period of grace must be given. As this period does not appear on the terms and conditions, therefore, how can you know the time limit. Just so u feel a bit more relaxed about it, I have appealed to POPLA on this very issue where I stayed less than 8 minutes but the PPC are claiming i was there for 11 minutes. I won by default because the PPC sent in submissions 2 weeks too late. So confident am I that I contacted the PPC and offered to back them in having this case reassessed. I want to win this one properly. Any help I can give, no problem

Coupon-mad

karenloveskermit wrote: »

Please could you help me with the POPLA appeal?

Just tick 'I am not liable for the parking charge' and then draft an appeal as to why and what you want produced as evidence by CPS. You can see the sort of thing that works and what doesn't work, from that link above of the POPLA successes (and failures) so far. Certainly NOT mitigation 'sorry I wasn't long'!

You will have to cite the BPA code of practice...I practically wrote part of an appeal for you in my last response...all you need to do is put the points in the first person.

Then post your draft appeal here first and we can help - we cannot write it from scratch as we weren't there!

karenloveskermit

Thank you, here is the POPLA appeal I have drafted.

I am not liable for this parking charge as I decided not to accept the contract and I didn't park in this car park.

I left within a few minutes, which is surely within a grace period that should be given to allow me time to enter the car park, decide wether to accept the contract or not (in this'l case I did not accept it) and left the car park. I left after a few minutes of reading the car park notice and CPS would have to prove with reliable and concrete evidence that I was parked there longer than a reasonable grace time.

Coupon-mad

karenloveskermit wrote: »

Thank you, here is the POPLA appeal I have drafted.

I am not liable for this parking charge as I decided not to accept the contract and I didn't park in this car park.

I left within a few minutes, which is surely within a grace period that should be given to allow me time to enter the car park, decide wether to accept the contract or not (in this'l case I did not accept it) and left the car park. I left after a few minutes of reading the car park notice and CPS would have to prove with reliable and concrete evidence that I was parked there longer than a reasonable grace time.

That's your first paragraph then!

Although you need to have a look at 'grace periods' in the BPA Code of Practice and quote it. Easy to find on the BPA website but in fact Guy's Dad has already quoted it for you! Better to quote from the CoP in a POPLA appeal as it gives the person making the decision something to base it on.

But how about also summat like this but you will have to amend the red bits:




'' Re: Parking Charge Notice (ref number)

On (date) I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number xxxxxxx. As the registered keeper of this vehicle I dispute and deny the charge for the reasons set out below:

No grace period
{Your argument including the quote from the BPA CoP given by Guy's Dad.}


No contract
There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and CPS. The driver did not see any signs when the driver first entered the car park and at that time therefore had no idea about any alleged contract or restrictions and would certainly not have agreed to pay this extortionate 'charge' under any circumstances. For that very reason, when the driver got out of the car and then read the nearest sign, they decided to leave and informed the {person they were meeting? occupier? who?} that they were just going to park elsewhere. The car was moved within a couple of minutes - well within the BPA CoP's allowed grace period - and no contract was agreed with CPS whatsoever.

In addition, if Combined Parking Solutions are alleging that this ticket is a contractual sum then why are they not adhering to any of the regulations surrounding VAT? They did not provide me with a VAT invoice which states what service I have apparently would have received in exchange for the 'charge' if I had chosen to stay in the car park and potentially had become liable (which I have shown that I did not, and so was never liable). The BPA have stated categorically this week that private parking charges do not attract VAT (based on the VCS -v- HMRC 2013 appeal decision) and therefore it follows that private parking charges cannot be a contractual matter, and can only represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A private parking company cannot allege a contract exists on the one hand (for POPLA and for the public) and yet suggest it's non-contractual and therefore a non-VAT matter (for HMRC).

No site agreement/contract with landowner/occupier
CPS have not supplied a copy of the contract and site agreement between them and the landowner/occupier. If it is now in the POPLA 'evidence pack' then I ask that POPLA scrutinises this because I contend that CPS does not have a sufficient contract or site agreement which would give them any site ownership/assignment of interest to give them the legal status to pursue Parking Charge Notices with drivers. Indeed, as far as I am aware, the only items relating to CPS on that site are the signs and some blank 'Parking Charge Notice' template notepads - there are no staff nor ANPR/camera equipment present and so CPS have no legal status there whatsoever that could possibly allow them to make contractual agreements with visitors.


No reliable evidence from CPS
I contend that I believe that any photos or notes provided by CPS have been supplied only by an anonymous (non CPS employee) person on-site, taking any photos with an ordinary camera and then uploading them to the CPS website. Since it is a fact that CPS pay significant 'bounties' to landowner/occupiers for tickets - as is seen from their website which I wish to draw to the attention of POPLA - clearly any such 'evidence' fails to provide the level of reliability and accountability expected of any BPA AOS member.

Non-CPS staff ordinary residents or on-site workers looking purely for opportunities to collect 'bounties' on site have a vested interest in taking immediate photos of any car and will also not be conversant at all with the Protection of Freedoms Act nor with the BPA Code of Practice (whether it be regarding grace periods or any/all other requirements). It is my contention that any 'evidence' provided by CPS comprises purely speculative tip-off photos from a member of the public in pursuit of personal gain, and as such is wholly unreliable and so any contractual or breach/trespass allegation is unfair and unenforceable.

No breach and no trespass
If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the CPS sign & ticket does not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if CPS do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in the two/three minutes the car was briefly on site and then left, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion to the brief stop.

I respectfully ask POPLA to direct Combined Parking Solutions to cancel this ticket.

yours faithfully

karenloveskermit''

karenloveskermit

Thank you for your help, that's fab, I would have never put all that in. Thanks so much :j

Coupon-mad

karenloveskermit wrote: »

Thank you for your help, that's fab, I would have never put all that in. Thanks so much :j

As long as you have no connection to CPS and no other agenda for this thread - and I have no reason to doubt you - I think that will win the POPLA appeal and you won't be coming back to say that CPS have reared their ugly heads again. You'll be coming back to tell us about your POPLA win I hope.

Half_way

So lets gt this straight, if i drove into this car park, went up to the payment machine, didnt like the fees charged ( ie a cheaper better car park was elsewhere) then after consulting a map/satnav/phone and drove out combined parking solutions would attempt to make a charge?

Times must be hard for Combined parking solutions if they are scraping this low in the barrel.

Coupon-mad

Half_way wrote: »

So lets gt this straight, if i drove into this car park, went up to the payment machine, didnt like the fees charged ( ie a cheaper better car park was elsewhere) then after consulting a map/satnav/phone and drove out combined parking solutions would attempt to make a charge?

Times must be hard for Combined parking solutions if they are scraping this low in the barrel.

Yep, because CPS use random people to snoop, rush out and take the pictures for them in many of 'their' car parks. No-one from CPS is involved at all in some car parks - and so we can use this in POPLA appeals, like I have done above. Although it looks from the headings, a bit like the Parking Cowboys' template it's not, it's a bespoke version I have come up with for CPS.

Feel free to make suggested amendments as it's off the cuff at the moment.

karenloveskermit

They wasn't a ticket machine, no option to buy a ticket

Coupon-mad

karenloveskermit wrote: »

They wasn't a ticket machine, no option to buy a ticket

I didn't say there was - but I presume you are replying to Half-way who was just making a general observation about the way CPS operate.

By the way DO NOT REPLY to any private message you get about this matter AT ALL. Combined Parking Solutions are well known on this forum and I would not be surprised if someone tries to get details & info from you. DON'T fall for it, even looooong after you win at POPLA this is not a matter for private messages.