4 hours free parking but 10 minutes over!

Coupon-mad

suzewuze wrote: »

But the 4 reasons for appeal are...
1- stolen car
2-not parked improperly
3-not liable to pay
4-charged the incorrect fee

That's on the popla form. How can anyone help?

We have seen others make the same mistake, like them you are looking at it in a somewhat blinkered way and you've quoted stuff we already know and in fact we never suggest people bother to read the POLPA website! You've wasted your time poring over the grounds of appeal. It would have been better to just ask us rather than assuming ''So there you have it, quoted from POPLA website. I have no grounds for appeal and they would not allow an appeal anyway.''

NOPE THAT'S WRONG! SORRY TO SHOUT BUT I AM UPSET THAT PEOPLE CAN BE SO EASILY PUT OFF!! :eek:

I would tick 3 out of those 4 boxes for starters (clearly all apply except for the 'stolen' grounds. See how we typically just work the grounds for appeal sentences in to a POPLA appeal below). Instead of typing phrases out why not Google those sentences, you'd probably have found this which we normally show people who wobble and doubt their grounds for appeal at this point:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/secret-reasons-you-can-use-in-your.html

and this is useful for you too:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla/

I WILL WRITE YOU AN APPEAL IN A MO, QUICKLY COPIED AND PASTED IN MINUTES FROM THE LOADS OF OTHERS ON THIS FORUM. THERE ARE SEVERAL POPLA APPEALS KICKING ABOUT ON THE FORUM THAT PEOPLE HAVE USED AGAINST UKPC - BUT YOURS IS EASY AS MOST OF IT WILL BE COPY & PASTE!

Coupon-mad

Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA appeal re UKPC ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appeal summarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded the appropriate amount.


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms UKPC are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements . I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, and clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
UKPC do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.

In their Notices and in the rejection letter, UKPC has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whether UKPC have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


NO EVIDENCE OF PARKING TIME
UKPC are relying on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit the Operator is relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO REASONABLE GRACE PERIOD ALLOWED
The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Operator is required to 'allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.' They are also required to allow time for a car to drive into the car park, find a space, park, alight and help passengers out (in this case two small toddlers), as well as read the signs and decide whether to stay (without any enforcement applying to this time). And yet in this instance a fake PCN has been issued for an alleged 'overstay' of just 11 minutes over the 4 hours which equates to around 4% of the parking time allowed. As the signage in the car park provides no indication of any 'grace period' and the tiny percentage 'alleged overstay' of 11 minutes could easily be the time taken to arrive (as described above) and finally to load the car, seat the children and leave, then I say UKPC allowed no reasonable grace period at all.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
The Notice I have received make it clear that UKPC is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. UKPC has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be UKPC or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, UKPC has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - (part 21) ANPR
UKPC have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR). I require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
UKPC are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then UKPC cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can UKPC lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by UKPC is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. UKPC's own website is damning in this regard:

http://www.ukparkingcontrol.com/faq.html

From UKPC website June 2013:
''frequently asked questions
How much would it cost us to use your parking management services? Nothing at all! We provide parking management services to our clients free of charge (subject to site survey).
So how do you earn your money?
Our revenue is generated from the parking charges issued. In many instances we are also able to provide a client revenue rebate of 10%.''




So in conclusion, this is (by their own admission on the Operator's own website!) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.




Signed:

Dated:

Parking-Prankster

Suzewuze, your situation is by no means unique. If after reading the expert's posts here your mind is changed and you believe you can appeal, please sign up to my call of action and complain to London Councils, who run POPLA, that you are being misled by their website into thinking you cannot appeal.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/call-to-action-why-are-popla-hiding.html

suzewuze

Coupon mad...thanks so much, it now makes perfect sense! Do I send this to UKPC or POPLA?

Coupon-mad

That's for POPLA.

Did UKPC give you a POPLA form or just the POPLA website? If the former, just staple the printed out appeal to the completed form with most boxes ticked and making sure all sheets have the POPLA code on and the car reg and PCN number too. If email then copy & paste that appeal into the submission of appeal area/link on the POPLA website.

Coupon-mad

suzewuze wrote: »

Coupon mad...thanks so much, it now makes perfect sense!

Did you win? Just having another look at a few threads where we have never seen the POPLA outcome. Just hoping you get an email as I have replied here. If so, please show us (copy & paste) the POPLA decision in full!