Parking Control Management PCN

Guys_Dad

The signage is definitely relevant and it should be the major plank of the appeal. Photos would be of great help too. Even a few Google earth prints of either end of the street showing no entrance signs.

You may also want to cast your eye over this http://timkevan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/challenge-to-private-parking-charge.html and see if you find any additional help there.

Coupon-mad

FingersLily wrote: »

Thanks Umkomaas. However, I have already appealed to the PPC which they have rejected. I appealed on the grounds of poor signage and I parked in the bay in good faith. I have a POPLA code although they didn't actually say it was that. They just called it a Verification Code!

I'm now at the stage of appealing to POPLA which is where I've hit a stumbling block.

Just to reiterate, I think I need to appeal on the grounds that the PPC do not have a contract entitling them to levy charges but I'm not certain on that.

I think the signage is also relevant. The signs are on the opposite side of the road at a height of about 2 feet. They are attached to a private car park fence & say that a permit is required to park in this area. I thought they referred to the car park, not the marked bays.

Lack of contract, as you say
Signs being too low and not visible and not beside those bays and not at the street entrance
Lack of ownership of the land
Not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss
The charge is clearly a penalty = unenforceable
Lack of naming the 'creditor'
Breaches of the BPA Code of Practice, compare your ticket to the Code, look for any omissions
Breaches of the POFA, compare your ticket wording & timeline to this, look for any omissions:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

Here's another POPLA appeal I wrote recently, does this help, it's only a few headings & paragraphs in a simple letter:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62229369#Comment_62229369

Please just draft something for us to work with that starts 'I am the registered keeper of car reg xxxx and I am not liable for this parking charge. This is my challenge'. Just copy one on the link I gave you, tweak it to suit and change 'car park' to 'relevant private land' or 'parking bays'.

You would feel more confident I think if you also read the BPA Code of Practice and think 'did they do this? Do I know if they did that?' and If you are not sure add it into your appeal because the burden then shifts to the Operator to disprove each and every point you make. So the more points the better.

HTH

FingersLily

Fabulous Coupon-mad. Thank you so much.

I have drawn up a draft appeal from all of your examples & advice. I have read the BPA Code of Practice repeatedly as we'll as the DFT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges.

I haven't included anything about 'No creditor identified' as I have not received a Notice to Keeper. All I have received is a Notice to Driver which I appealed against. As far as I can see, the Notice includes everything it should. Anyway, here is my appeal:


Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA appeal re Parking Control Management PCN number xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the car registration XXXX XXX and I am not liable for this parking charge. This is my challenge.


BREACH OF BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
According to the BPA Code of Practice, when rejecting a challenge the Operator must tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA and provide a relevant code. However, in the rejection letter Parking Control Management have hidden the code and they have not explained what it is at all - I searched the letter and did not see it for days. I believe this is a deliberate attempt by Parking Control Management to confuse people and it does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice (section 22.12) as Parking Control Management have failed to explain correctly how to make an appeal. At the bottom of the rejection letter it says I can make an appeal to POPLA and gives the website address but nowhere does it say anything about a code, then hidden among the references at the top of the letter is an unexplained 10 digit code. How is a layperson supposed to know what this is? I had to work it out for myself with the help of an Internet forum who knew what a POPLA Code was.

UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs relating to the parking bays are very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Parking Control Management are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when entering the road. The signs are attached to the fence of a private car park on the opposite side of the road to the parking bays and are at a very low height. Furthermore, there are no signs alongside the parking bays at all and no visible signs at the entrance to the road. The BPA Code of Practice (Appendix states that 'A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to The parking area.' I could not find any visible signs at all at the entrance to the area. The signs that do exist are attached to a private car park fence. Therefore it is unclear that they relate to the parking bays. I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs (wording, position, and clarity) do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements 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
Parking Control Management do not own these parking bays and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.

In their Notice and in the rejection letter, Parking Control Management 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 bays, 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 Parking Control Management 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 BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Parking Control Management 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 parking bay for this particular 'contravention'.

Since the Operator claims this to be a 'Residents' Only' parking bay, despite there being no specific signage identifying this to be so, with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then Parking Control Management 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 Parking Control Management lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.

BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
According to Schedule 4, Paragraph 7 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Notice to Driver must 'identify the creditor'. Parking Control Management has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Driver since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be Parking Control Management or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Driver to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”!

The wording of Paragraph 7(2)(e) 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”, Parking Control Management has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

Furthermore Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 also states that the Notice to Driver must 'specify the relevant land on which it (the vehicle) was parked' (paragraph 7(2)(a)). On the Notice I received the site name is referred to as 'The Quadrent'. Furthermore, the letter I received from Parking Control Management in rejection of my appeal also refers to 'The Quadrent', as does the text on all of the photographs used by Parking Control Management as evidence. As there is no such area named 'The Quadrent' I contend that the Notice to Driver is also invalid in this area.

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 Parking Control Management is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law.

So in conclusion, this is 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:


Any thoughts or comments would be very gratefully received. Thank you so much to everyone who has contributed thus far.

Guys_Dad

"Since it is a 'Residents' Only' parking bay, ...."

maybe

"Since the Operator claims this to be a "Residents Only" Parking bay, despite there being no specific signage identifying this to be so....."

FingersLily

Thanks Guys Dad. I have amended my draft accordingly.

Coupon-mad

FingersLily wrote: »

I have read the BPA Code of Practice repeatedly as we'll as the DFT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges...

You have spent a fun weekend!

Just a thought, does the original Notice to Driver state a misleading and confusing discount? In a recent PCM case won at POPLA (cited in the 'POPLA decisions' thread which is well worth a read if you can stand any more!) there was a £95 ticket which showed a discount on the front to £60 or so, then on the back it was £57! It was mentioned by the appellant among other things, and the POPLA decision was won. I think there are 2 examples of cases won against PCM on that sticky thread (near the top), have you seen them? Have a look and see in what way PCM failed...use it to your advantage!

And I think you should start with a paragraph stating that PCM have breached the BPA Code of Practice which requires a PPC to supply a verification code and tell an appellant how to appeal to POPLA.

Say that in their letter, PCM have hidden the code and not explained what it is at all - you searched the letter and didn't see it at all for days! You can say you believe this is deliberate attempt by PCM to confuse people and does not comply with the BPA CoP (quote the relevant part if you can find it!!). At the bottom of the letter it says I may make an appeal to POPLA and gives the website address but nowhere does it say anything about a code, then hidden among the refs at the top is an unexplained 10 digit code. How is a layperson supposed to know what it is?

FingersLily

Unfortunately I can't get them on the amount as they have been consistent throughout.

The section of the BOA Code relating to POPLA is 22.12:

If you reject a challenge you must:

- tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA. This includes providing a template 'notice of appeal' form, or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal.

The rejection letter I received from PCM says:

'2. You may also make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service online at (POPLA website) within 28 days.'

Does this mean that, as they have not mentioned the POPLA code they are guilty of not telling me how to appeal? As you have commented, the POPLA code is at the top of the letter beneath the PCN Number & vehicle registration. It just says 'Verification Code:' followed by a 10 digit number.

I have amended my appeal above to include this. Do you think this is a valid point?

Stroma

If they don't tell you the context of the code, how the hell are you supposed to know what it's for ? This number could just be their reference number, I mean who pays attention to such things? And that's why it's there they are being underhanded and obstructive.

If you don't have net access you are reliant on what the parking company gives you, so if they are being unfair how would you know if you don't even know what popla is. That is why I think that they should be forced to have standard information about popla, and it should be sent out with every ticket, it also shouldn't be written by someone who has vested interest in this.

Coupon-mad

FingersLily wrote: »

Does this mean that, as they have not mentioned the POPLA code they are guilty of not telling me how to appeal? As you have commented, the POPLA code is at the top of the letter beneath the PCN Number & vehicle registration. It just says 'Verification Code:' followed by a 10 digit number.

I have amended my appeal above to include this. Do you think this is a valid point?

Yes very valid. Ask POPLA, how is a layperson supposed to know what it is? And that it does not comply as they have not told you how to make an appeal to POPLA, you had to work it out for yourself with the help of a forum which knew what a POPLA code was (no shame in saying that!).

Say that in their letter, PCM have hidden the code and not explained what it is at all - you searched the letter and didn't see it at all for days! You can say you believe this is deliberate attempt by PCM to confuse people and does not comply with the BPA CoP (quote the relevant part). At the bottom of the letter it says I may make an appeal to POPLA and gives the website address but nowhere does it say anything about a code, then hidden among the refs at the top is an unexplained 10 digit code.

FingersLily

Thanks guys. I've edited my appeal again. Do you think it looks ok & should I go ahead & send it? The only other thing I thought may be relevant is the fact that they spelt the road name wrong on every bit of correspondence but I don't suppose this makes a difference other than highlighting their incompetence!