Civil Penalty Notice

waamo

Interestingly their website claims they issue penalties under the Civil Enforcement tab "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Civil Penalty Systems and Solutions for:[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Housing Organisations[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Hospitals[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Educational Sites"[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Jordan1983 wrote: »

Alright I'm going to start a draft this week and post it here.

Just wondering, if my POPLA appeal gets rejected would I have to pay this "fine"?

NOPE but you'll win anyway if you word it well, here's another example of some POPLA wording by bargepole:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=61352199&postcount=20

Try to include everything (see also the previous links!!) and include all the BPA code of practice breaches you can find. Let's see your draft please - we do want to help perfect this appeal for you but we need something to work with.

Jordan1983

I've been quite busy but I have gone through a lot of links/examples and tried to use what I think is relevant to my case. I have come up with this draft and I'm not sure what else I can say. All I have is that it is my allocated bay and it was a bank holiday(if that matters?)


On the 6 May 2013, Car Parking Partnership issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was parked in a resident’s parking space without clearly displaying a valid resident’s permit. However, the above vehicle is owned by the resident and was parked in the parking space allocated to the resident regardless of whether a valid permit was displayed.

My appeal based on the parking charge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount and I am not liable for the parking charge:
1) The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Car Parking Partnership and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge – Notice to Keeper dated the 6th May 2013 is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered. The fact that my car was parked in that an allocated bay did not mean that the Landowner was prevented from receiving additional revenue through parking charges because the bay would not of generated a revenue with or without my car being there.

2) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Car Parking Partnership any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Car Parking Partnership's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require them to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

3) I contend that Car Parking Partnership are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

4) I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Car Parking Partnership to prove otherwise so I require that Car Parking Partnership produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

5) Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Car Parking Partnership and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Car Parking Partnership can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

Jordan1983

Any feedback would be helpful. thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

''because the above vehicle was parked in a resident’s parking space without clearly displaying a valid resident’s permit.'' Why make their case for them? More like ''because they allege I need a permit to park in my own space which is utter codswallop, as I will show''.:p Or do you have a permit anyway, if yes then say that the car does display a permit at all times.?

''would not of'' (LOL!) = ''would not have''

and what about:

- Their lack of clear signage? Show pics to POPLA of the signs and lack of them as compared to the BPA Code of Practice section on signage.

- no 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'?

- no 'creditor' specifically identified on the Notice so not POFA complaint?

- Other issues with the Notice itself and the timelines followed, wording of the letters compared to the Parking Cowboys checklist for registered keeper liability?

- any other breaches of the BPA code of practice? It's for you to find, must be loads seeing as 92% of POPLA appeals against this bunch have been upheld so far!

- And require the Operator to show lots of evidence!! For them to fail it only takes them to omit one item that POPLA agrees was reasonable for you to request!

How about these reasonable requests - which are pretty similar to the sort of basic things a Council would have to show at adjudication and some of which are requirements under the BPA code of practice anyway:

- a copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner and the current residents have agreed to/been informed about it
- and evidence that the Operator is legally enabled by status or legal authority to override the prior rights, covenants and easements enjoyed by the residents under their lease/rental agreements
- and a current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier
- and contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car, as required at the entrance and in the car park
- and a definitive map of where these signs are in that particular car park.

Here's a couple of POPLA appeals I wrote recently (on disabled cases)which cite compelling small claim cases lost by PPCs and have paragraphs about the 'bad signage/creditor/no pre-estimate' issues:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79656

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79545&st=0&gopid=826768

Don't leave anything out.

Jordan1983

Thanks for all of that. Even microsoft word spotted my grammar error haha.

The permit displayed was out of date(I have a valid one now) so I will just focus on their mistakes such as the genuine loss.

What do you mean by no creditor been identified on the notice? I had a look through the Cowboys checklist and unfortunately my notice does meet the the checklist.

Coupon-mad

The creditor thing:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78723

and an example paragraph to appeal on that point is on one of those POPLA appeal examples I linked.

Jordan1983

Pretty much ready to submit my appeal. I've added the part about " PoFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….” as you have suggested because my notice doesn't have those exact words required.

Should I include a summary conclusion below my points?

Coupon-mad

You could do.

You have added the other points as well of course? SIGNAGE is important to challenge as is 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss' etc.

Jordan1983

Yeah I've added signage.. It's not placed high but it is pretty small so I just altered the paragraph you had for the disabled situation.