disabled parking

tjt65

This is so far............. On the 21st april 2013, the Appellant drove to the car park in question, to bring back faulty heavy machinery fully assembled as requested by the retailer and also in the space rethe retailer told us to park in something 8 yave proof of via email from the store manager, The Operator is a member of the British Parking Association, and the BPA Code of Practice states, in section 7.1, that the Operator must have written authority from the landowner to recover parking charges, including pursuing through court action. The Appellant puts the Operator to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location. The Operator states, in their letter of rejection, that the parking charge represents a contractual breach. Under established contract law, a party can only claim for their actual, or pre-estimated losses arising directly from a breach of contract. The Operator has not supplied any evidence or breakdown of such losses, which, the Appellant submits, would in reality be a vanishingly small sum, if any due to the fact the parking area was not even half full, and nowhere near the amount demanded by the Operator, The Appellant refers the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above The Appellant further refers the Adjudicator to recent decisions made by POPLA, many of which are now in the public domain. These include statements such as “However, I must find as a fact that a term of the contract was that if the vehicle parked without complying with the conditions of the contract, the Appellant agreed to pay a parking charge of £85. The Operator is seeking to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle …” and similar rulings. In light of the evidence of Paragraph 4 above, this interpretation can no longer be considered correct The Appellant asserts that, for the reasons stated above, no “relevant obligation” has been created, and that the parking charge would not be recoverable by the Operator under common civil law. The Appellant therefore invites the Adjudicator to allow the appeal.

tjt65

Also forgot to add...I am writing this appeal after the 3rd time of asking for a verification code once by e-mail twice by letter with proof of postage the code eventually arriving way past the 35 days it sjould have come by.

nigelbb

You need to put that appeal into paragraphs. I'm sympathetic & I can't bear to read it so you can be sure that a POPLA assessor's eyes will just glaze over when faced with a solid block of text. Put in bold the important points so that their eyes are drawn to them.

tjt65

It is in paragraphs mate sorry iv sent it from my phone not sure why its done it in solid text like that.

Guys_Dad

tjt65 wrote: »

This is so far............. On the 21st april 2013, the Appellant drove to the car park in question, to bring back faulty heavy machinery fully assembled as requested by the retailer and also in the space re the retailer told us to park in something. I have proof of via email from the store manager.

The Operator is a member of the British Parking Association, and the BPA Code of Practice states, in section 7.1, that the Operator must have written authority from the landowner to recover parking charges, including pursuing through court action. The Appellant puts the Operator to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location.

The Operator states, in their letter of rejection, that the parking charge represents a contractual breach. Under established contract law, a party can only claim for their actual, or pre-estimated losses arising directly from a breach of contract. The Operator has not supplied any evidence or breakdown of such losses, which, the Appellant submits, would in reality be a vanishingly small sum, if any due to the fact the parking area was not even half full, and nowhere near the amount demanded by the Operator.

The Appellant refers the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT.

If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge.

The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above

The Appellant further refers the Adjudicator to recent decisions made by POPLA, many of which are now in the public domain.

These include statements such as “However, I must find as a fact that a term of the contract was that if the vehicle parked without complying with the conditions of the contract, the Appellant agreed to pay a parking charge of £85.

The Operator is seeking to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of the charge which the Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle …” and similar rulings. In light of the evidence of Paragraph 4 above, this interpretation can no longer be considered correct.

The Appellant asserts that, for the reasons stated above, no “relevant obligation” has been created, and that the parking charge would not be recoverable by the Operator under common civil law. The Appellant therefore invites the Adjudicator to allow the appeal.

Tried to make it clearer.

I would be wary of the path of VCS -v- HMRC and the VAT point. Seems a diversion, particularly when there are other points.

You have not demanded that they supply the breakdown of pre-estimated losses. You should do that in absolute terms.

tjt65

Thank you for that mate appreciate it.

Coupon-mad

That's a good start, just some ideas:

'' I [STRIKE]have[/STRIKE] attach proof [STRIKE]of via[/STRIKE] in the form of an email from the store manager, which constitutes a previous contractual agreement between the driver and the Store (for whom the Operator is a mere agent). This email from the Store was an individually-negotiated parking arrangement which (unlike the so-called 'charge' from the Operator which is the subject of this challenge) fulfilled all the requirements of a contract and which takes precedent. ''


'' The Operator states, in their letter of rejection and in the signage (such as it is), that the parking charge represents a contractual breach. Under established contract law, a party can only claim for their actual, or pre-estimated losses arising directly from a breach of contract. The Operator has not supplied any evidence or breakdown of such losses, which, the Appellant submits, would in reality be nothing because their client had already agreed for the driver to park there. [STRIKE]a vanishingly small sum, if any due to the fact the parking area was not even
half full, and nowhere near the amount demanded by the Operator. [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]The Appellant refers the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the
case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The
principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private
Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for
a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of [/STRIKE][STRIKE]
the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected
from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving
from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." [/STRIKE]
[STRIKE]
In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term.
If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT
invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to
HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. [/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met.[/STRIKE] It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident. [STRIKE] , as set out above[/STRIKE]

''
[STRIKE]The Appellant further refers the Adjudicator to recent decisions made by POPLA,
many of which are now in the public domain.

These include statements
such as “However, I must find as a fact that a term of the contract was that if
the vehicle parked without complying with the conditions of the contract, the
Appellant agreed to pay a parking charge of £85.

The Operator is
seeking to enforce the contract, by seeking payment of the charge which the
Appellant accepted as a term of the contract by parking his vehicle …” and
similar rulings. In light of the evidence of Paragraph 4 above, this
interpretation can no longer be considered correct.

The Appellant asserts that, for the reasons stated above, no “relevant obligation” has been created, and that the parking charge would not be recoverable by the Operator under common civil law. The Appellant therefore invites the Adjudicator to allow the appeal. ''[/STRIKE]




I think you need more just in case your email is not clear enough that you could park in that bay (did it REALLY allow you to take a disabled bay?!). So add points on:


unclear signage? Should be a major point in EVERY POPLA appeal!

BPA Code of Practice breaches?

No contract between driver and Operator?

Unlawful penalty, unenforceable?

Breach of UTTCR 1999?



Such as in this one (post no 2):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4695227

If your finished draft is long, save it as a PDF and then attach it to your POPLA online appeal (do not try to fit it in the POPLA appeal box as the word-count is too limited and it will chop the wording off short). If you have a POPLA form to post, make sure your appeal is stapled (not paper-clipped) to the POPLA form and that you write the POPLA code on the top of every single sheet in case they become detached at POPLA.

tjt65

The email from the store manager states the day we got a ticket we was returning goods to the shop so probably not clear enough?

tjt65

should I still include?

tjt65

Do you attach the whole appeal or put as much as you can in the box and attach the rest? Cheers