Parking charge notice: Help with POPLA appeal

Coops56

Hi, new guy on this forum, picked up a Parking charge notice from Vinci Park Services Ltd on behalf of their client St David Ltd Partnership. The charge was for not parked correctly within a marked bay (had paid for a parking ticket OK).
I had parked in the corner by a ticket machine, there were no signs saying no parking and no hatching on the ground showing a parking restriction. I was between 2 white lines although the lines were not parallel.
I have appealed to Vinici who have rejected my appeal.
My next option is POPLA.
Do I appeal to POPLA or just start ignoring Vinici as seems to be the advice?

Thanks
J

The_Slithy_Tove

You may as well appeal to POPLA now you have a code, safe in the knowledge it'll cost Vinci £27+VAT, and won't cost you a penny, even if you lose (you do realise this is unenforceable, don't you).

What do the signs actually say? If it doesn't mention parking in spaces/not on lines, then it cannot be part of any alleged contract, and so Vinci can't attempt to penalise you for it.

There are a bunch of other arguments to use in an appeal, like do Vinci have a contract with the car park owner which allows them to pursue such charges (I bet they don't), is the charge a contractural charge, or losses from breach of contract. Others will be along soon. Use their advice and post up your draft appeal for review before sending.

Coops56

Thanks for the feedback, I guess my main question is it enforceable?

From the response from Vinci:

The Adam Street car park is managed by Vinci Park Services Ltd on behalf of our client St David Ltd Partnership, we manage the site as per the terms and conditions set out by the client.

'The term and conditions state that you must park your vehicle entirely within a marked bay. The area you choose to park your vehicle is not a marked bay therefore the parking charge notice has been issued correctly'

My issue what is a 'marked bay' , they didnt answer that bit.

John

Coops56

POPLA appeal:

Paid parking ticket so no loss to the land owner

Terms and conditions only displayed at entrance to car park and unreadable (Details in small print) to a passing motorist

Parking penalty was issued for ' not parked fully within a marked bay' See attached photo

No ground markings or visual signage to say this was a not a marked parking bay

Any other ideas please?/

Thanks

Guys_Dad

Read this from beginning to end http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_CodeofPractice_2013_v1.pdf

Now check the size of the letters on the signage if you think they are too small. Check that they have all of the required content on their notices. Have they got the right company name on the charge notice and does it tie in with the signs? Vinci are lax on that.

Ask for a copy of the contract with St David Ltd partnership. This tells how many signs they have to erect and also whether or no they are authorised to issue any form of charge. Did they offer at least 40% discount for prompt payment.
Photograph where you parked if it helps.

Ask to see any photos they took.

The BPA COP effectively gives you a checklist to use to catch the PPC out. Use it but be prepared to put the effort in.

Coupon-mad

Coops56 wrote: »

POPLA appeal:

Paid parking ticket so no loss to the land owner

Terms and conditions only displayed at entrance to car park and unreadable (Details in small print) to a passing motorist

Parking penalty was issued for ' not parked fully within a marked bay' See attached photo

No ground markings or visual signage to say this was a not a marked parking bay

Any other ideas please?/

Thanks

You may win on the two points in bold because POPLA recently found in favour of an appellant about unclear signage - but IMHO you could do with more than that for a POPLA appeal.

I would give you the same sort of advice that I gave this poster in my reply #8:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4506249

You need stuff about contract law and stuff about any breaches of the BPA Code of Practice and you need to demand they show a copy of the site agreement and contract with the owner/occupier that allows them to not only issue parking charges but have they got the legal standing to enforce/pursue these fake PCNs, seeing as Vinci don't own the car park themselves.

And if this is a 'driver accepted the contract in the signs' allegation you can say it's an unfair contract term due to having no bay markings in certain places in the car park where cars are allowed to park, and that if they alleging a breach of contract then that renders the charge an unenforceable penalty, no more and no less.

Or, if instead it's a claim based on trespass/loss (which one it is, Vinci have not made clear to you, and it can't be both contract and trespass - so tell POPLA that they have failed to state the basis of their charge) then you can argue that a third party non-owning PPC makes no loss at all in this situation. Only the legal owner could allege any loss and that cannot include normal business running costs and incidentals, so demand that Vinci declare the basis of the charge and show evidence to refute what you are saying - if not then POPLA should of course find in your favour.

Indeed if it's a free car park then you can contend to POPLA that Vinci's entire INCOME in this car park is from fake PCNs. Not loss, income. And without a fair contract and fair/clear signs and lines it's simply not the sort of money-spinner that POPLA should be supporting.

spacey2012

First thing I would object to is the title of appellant
This is not a legal court in any way shape or form and the panel has no legal standing whatsoever.
The term is just part of the deception that is the PPC scam.
POPLA is a kangaroo court, run by, paid for, funded by and headed by parking companies themselves.

Coops56

Thanks Coupon mad.
I guess I could just ignore it :-)

john