Highview Tesco charge

Shade-

Thanking you, sent. Will keep you updated.

Shade-

Ok I've finally been issued with a POPLA code because Highview "don't have to provide a copy of our contract with the landowner/client as part of the appeal process". Obviously the appeal was rejected.

What now?

Shade-

Bump. What should I reply with now?

Stroma

Have a look here so you can see the decisions that have been successful
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Look here for some general advice about parking and popla
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/

And look here for the prankster who gives an alternative view at times
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

The important thing is its not a race to get it in, people will help you, so do a little research and put a draft copy up so we can help you

Shade-

I'm thinking of going somewhere along these lines:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to contest a parking charge issued by Highview parking on 24/6/13 concerning vehicle **** *** parked at a Tesco store.

I wish to contest the charge on the following grounds:

1. The PCN I recieved simply states that the vehicle was parked for **:**. It does not state how long the allowed stay is and therefore does not make clear if the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. As part of the registered keepers appeal to the operator I requested that they prove they have the right to issue penalties on behalf of the landowner. They refused stating that they did not need to supply this information. I again challenge that they prove they have the right to issue PCN's on behalf of the supermarket.

3. Because the car park is free to use the charge issued by Highview constites a penalty, not a charge, making it unenforceable.

4. For the charge to be enforceable there should be a financial loss to the land owner. Because the breach of the rules incurred no loss to the landowner then the charge cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss as mentioned in point 1.

This is a rough draft now as I'm off to bed, any other suggestions I should add into this?

Coupon-mad

That's pretty good and very succinct but seems to miss some important points like signage (makes Highview have to produce maps, and they are rubbish sometimes at maps - see Parking Prankster's blog!) and no contract formed with the driver at all and ANPR requirements, like you'll see in the examples here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Make sure you have made lots of appeal points as per that advice in the link.

Shade-

Cheers, like I said I was half asleep when I wrote that lol. I'll have a read of the links you put up and make it into a final draft tomorrow.

Guys_Dad

Shade- wrote: »

I'm thinking of going somewhere along these lines:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to contest a parking charge issued by Highview parking on 24/6/13 concerning vehicle **** *** parked at a Tesco store.

I wish to contest the charge on the following grounds:

1. The PCN I recieved simply states that the vehicle was parked for **:**. It does not state how long the allowed stay is and therefore does not make clear if the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. As part of the registered keepers appeal to the operator I requested that they prove they have the right to issue penalties on behalf of the landowner. They refused stating that they did not need to supply this information. I again challenge that they prove they have the right to issue PCN's on behalf of the supermarket.

3. Because the car park is free to use the charge issued by Highview constites a penalty, not a charge, making it unenforceable.

4. For the charge to be enforceable there should be a financial loss to the land owner. Because the breach of the rules incurred no loss to the landowner then the charge cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss as mentioned in point 1.

This is a rough draft now as I'm off to bed, any other suggestions I should add into this?

I think that would fail as it stands.
It's not whether they have the right to issue PPNs but whether they can pursue them to the point of taking recovery action.

You haven't said that operating costs such as wages uniforms vehicle and camera costs, for example, can not be attributed to your transgression.

Do as c-m says, read a few of her links and beef it up. Fail to prepare - prepare to fail. (clich! of the month, but true)

Custard_Pie

Shade- wrote: »

Cheers, like I said I was half asleep when I wrote that lol. I'll have a read of the links you put up and make it into a final draft tomorrow.

Search the post from the title in my signature. It's a collation from the regulars on here for a comprehensive appeal to PoPLA. Tailor to suit, as not all points may be relevant, but it covers all winning points of late.

Shade-

I'm now thinking of sending the example at the bottom of this page https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4739845 pretty much as it is. Would that do the job?