Yet another contravention notice

Olical

Okay, will do. Thank you so much for your help. You've put my mind to rest for at least a little while.

Coupon-mad

Olical wrote: »

Okay, only to be expected really. So the final advice for the time being is to wait until they contact me and potentially pay what they are actually owed. Or should I just wait it out completely and see what happens? I'm just really worried I'll get this wrong and they will make a HUGE deal out of this.

The advice is to wait for a rejection letter then beat them at POPLA where you can word a clever appeal in such a way as to ensure they'll probably lose and have to cancel the fake PCN. We can help with that.

Olical

Well they finally replied with a resounding no. What a surprise.

I have a POPLA reference number now too, so what are my next steps with them? And do I still stand a chance? I would imagine POPLA will also dismiss it because tiny honest mistakes are identical to leaving your car there for days without pay in their eyes.

Thanks for your help so far!

Coupon-mad

Olical wrote: »

Well they finally replied with a resounding no. What a surprise.

I have a POPLA reference number now too, so what are my next steps with them? And do I still stand a chance? I would imagine POPLA will also dismiss it because tiny honest mistakes are identical to leaving your car there for days without pay in their eyes.

Thanks for your help so far!

I know POPLA would indeed reject it if you'd fired off a normal 'honest mistake' mitigating circumstances sort of weak appeal. So don't!!!

But luckily, we know what does win at POPLA. You will not get it wrong if you word the appeal as advised by posters here and you will be amazed with what you come up with in the end! Start by looking at the POPLA decisions thread at the top of the parking forum to see the latest wins added recently.

Read these for inspiration (scroll to the POPLA appeal in each thread as they all have one shown):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...7#post61207207

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...9#post60922079

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...5#post60291735

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?...st=20&start=20

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...4557127&page=2

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

Winning appeal which is re not buying a ticket BUT it's written in a rambling way so you have to pick out the good bits for your own appeal and lose the waffle IMHO:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76548&st=20&p=785597

In post #11 here I listed most points that a POPLA appeal should include:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4645375

and the OP then created a good appeal after that on that thread.

Then here in post #16 I wrote a POPLA appeal with stuff about BPA breaches:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80005

And here I mentioned some case law about showing that a fake PCN from any PPC is in fact an unenforceable penalty. Although this was written for a court defence, there's no reason why you can't include case law and OFT Guidance in a strong POPLA appeal, particularly as law graduates are the adjudicators!:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79937&st=40

As you can see it's NOT a matter of sending any old soft appeal about 'what happened'. It's about challenging the very basis of the fake PCN and the status of the company to even issue it. You can do this just by copy/pasting stuff and showing us your draft you come up with, please, to make sure you've included everything.

It's a good game to find the legal or BPA breach point that will trip up your PPC - use strong legal challenge points you will see used on those threads (all started by inexperienced newbies who have learned quickly how to defeat the scammers).

Let's see what you have cobbled together form the links provided; not your appeal as before but your challenge based on those links.

Olical

Thanks! These look great. One thing I would like to point out though is that mine was technically an overstay (I think, will confirm later). I'm pretty sure my weekly parking stint expired during the day and it was spotted a couple of hours later.

Does that help my case at all?

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Olical wrote: »

Thanks! These look great. One thing I would like to point out though is that mine was technically an overstay (I think, will confirm later). I'm pretty sure my weekly parking stint expired during the day and it was spotted a couple of hours later.

Does that help my case at all?

Thanks again!

Makes it easier I would say, as some of those examples are worded about overstays and so you can use more of the information you see.

The only paragraph immediately obvious as not applicable to you would be anything about 'not having a grace period' as you didn't overstay by a few minutes! And you will have to look to see whether the original PCCN actually specifically identified the 'creditor' or not (using that word). If it did then you can't use that paragraph that you will find is a common one. Hopefully NCP failed to identify the 'creditor' (using that word) because most PPCs fail on this point at the moment.

But everything else is worth including - even if you have no CLUE what the signs are like or whether they have any ownership of the car park, etc. The point is you have to set up all the hurdles for NCP to try to jump - and the burden of proof is on them to rebut everything you say.

You will see from the 'POPLA decisions' thread at the top of this forum, where I suggest you start your reading but look at the end of it (the most recent wins) that a decision is very often made because a PPC has failed to prove what the appellant is saying is wrong! The more you include the more likely you should be to win; a POPLA appeal should be very long IMHO but try to avoid rambling and repetition.

Olical

Well here's what I have cobbled together so far. I have no idea if it makes any of the correct points or not, I'm struggling with this.

I recently parked in an NCP car park situated next to a train station. I did not realise that my weekly payment would expire during that afternoon whilst I was at work. A PCCN was issued soon after it expired, I discovered it on my way home three hours later. My car was only parked without a valid ticket for that small amount of time.

NCP are demanding £75 (£50 if paid within 14 days) for three hours of parking without a ticket. To put this in perspective, my weekly ticket is £24.90.

1) The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In this case, NCP has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £50 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that NCP has suffered losses less that £10 for the duration that the car was parked without a ticket.

2) The sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whether no permit was displayed or a car was parked over a white line.. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £50 on days 1 to 14, then £75 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by NCP.

3) Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999):
Private Parking Company charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

I believe that the presented charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because NCP have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).

My PCCN does not mention a creditor anywhere within it either. It just says it's a "breach of terms and conditions".

Coupon-mad

There's loads more to add by copying from the POPLA appeal examples on the other threads. We don't recommend relying on one or two points of appeal
and your draft so far only has two (not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and it's a penalty). What about everything else, you are missing stuff that can win you this appeal and those links I gave you above are the most links I think I have so far ever given any newbie so you have enough to build a very strong appeal simply by cribbing from those other examples. Your draft has nothing about lack of or unclear signage, no compliant contract with landowner, no identification of creditor, listing all their BPA Code of Practice breaches...etc.

And you have started off by saying who was driving which is not how you see ANY POPLA appeal worded on this forum. Have a look at the ones I linked and you will see them all written in the third person, none of your 'I parked my car' nor 'I did not realise that' admissions or excuses should be included!

Guys_Dad

If it is £50 and £75 then there is a breach of the BPA COP that instructs PPCs to offer a 40% discount for prompt payment.

You have concentrated too much on the overstay and estimate of loss and nowhere near enough on the PPC failings.

Where is the photo of the failure in signage?
Where is the challenge to their authority to levy any charges? I refer to their contract with landowner.
Do they meet the BPA and POFA requirements on their documentation on their ticket and COP?

Please read the winning and losing appeals in the POPLA RESULTS sticky at top of forum and copy the relevant winning points.

Emz_O

I too have received a fine out of the blue from Parking Eye for a supposed contravention 2 wks ago. I'm furious, I did purchase a parking ticket from the machine and I did not overstay, I paid for up to 5 hours and left after 3. I did not save the ticket, I had no idea that this company are allegedly dodgy or I would have. They are fining me £85. I know that most people are saying it's a big scam and not to pay. The letter doesn't state why I'm being fined, either for not buying a ticket or for overstaying. There's no way of contacting the firm other than to appeal in writing. I did wonder if the machine wasn't working properly, but it had issued a ticket with my car reg on, and for the allotted time I'd paid for. I now think it's not a discrepancy. I wonder how many people have bought a ticket and displayed it correctly and then received a fine a few weeks later that it's difficult to dispute because they no longer have the ticket?