Excel Parking Notice

Ric02k13

It was Ashton retail park, i don't know the area very well at all but the letter from Excell says peel center.
Ill post the draft on here either today or tommorow.
Thanks again

Redx

Ric02k13 wrote: »

It was Ashton retail park, i don't know the area very well at all but the letter from Excell says peel center.
Ill post the draft on here either today or tommorow.
Thanks again

Peel Centre is in stockport , not ashton - the retail park in ashton is gala bingo and is where I have helped a relative challenge them at POPLA for an almost identical problem from a few months ago

just waiting for the appeal decision as it should have been done last week , so hopefully it was won on one of the usual appeal points like no GPEOL etc

the signage in ashton (where blockbuster is) says "tickets must be displayed at all times" and yet also states that the first 30 minutes - no ticket required

yet the redacted contract says under 1 hour is free !!!!!!!!!

clearly the punishment does not fit the crime and so their losses state everyday business running costs etc, not the GPEOL which clearly would be a lot less , maybe £10 at most

and Ashton Retail Park is a completely different retail park too

see here for frankie/bennys for addresses _http://www.frankieandbennys.com/find_a_restaurant/SK1 2HH

whereas Blockbuster ashton is here _http://www.yourtameside.com/directory/item/blockbuster

Address

• Street: 4 Ashton Retail Park 100 Wellington Road
• Postcode: OL6 6DJ
• City: Ashton-Under-Lyne
• State: Tameside
• Country: United Kingdom

Ric02k13

Ok so i know its quite similar to other appeals seen on here but i really think that this best fits the nature of the appeal.
Should i also include the fact that the redacted contract says under 1 hour is free? Should i include all saved previous appeals to Excel demanding POPLA codes/ break down of loss and contract ect??
Excel are also demanding payment to be recieved by the 6th of dec which is way before the 28 days given by POPLA to send the appeal.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator
RE: Excel Parking PCN number: ########
POPLA Code: ########

I’m writing to yourselves to appeal a parking charge notice (PCN) sent to me from Excel Parking Services on 07/06/2013. This alleged offence for ‘parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit’ was committed when my vehicle entered and exited a car park at the Ashton Retail park. The vehicle was parked there for a total of 47 minutes, between the hours of 14:16pm and 15:06pm. Excel themselves are demanding a payment of £100 for a 17 minute overstay

The Keeper of the vehicle initially appealed directly to Excel on 24/06/2013 seeking a cancellation of the penalty or a POPLA code. No other correspondence was received until 10/07/13 when a letter from Excel arrived with no POPLA code and themselves demanding knowing who was driving.. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. The Keeper sent another appeal on the 22/07/2013 to Excel again seeking a POPLA code. No other responses were received until the Keeper received a Liability notice dated 02/10/2013 again with no POPLA verification code attached. After another appeal was sent out on behalf of the keeper on the 20/10/2013 again requesting a POPLA code one was received on the 22/11/2013. Obviously as stated in the BPA CoP a POPLA verification code in required by law within 35 days of the initial appeal



I now want to set out why I'd like you to cancel this charge….


1. 'The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

Given that the duration of stay was recorded at 47 minutes with a free stay of 30 minutes, and the tariff set by the operator for a 1-2 hour stay is just £2, then the amount of the “penalty” imposed is highly disproportionate to any alleged “loss” by Excel Parking, and is therefore punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

The £100 charge (£60 if paid within 14 days) asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner for the time my car was parked there. The charge cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. In the appeal Excel did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Excel has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and I would expect to add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement, signage erection, salaries and office rent) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

It was found in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Mr R Ibbotson (16th May 2012) that general business costs cannot constitute a loss and also has been held to be the case in a number of very recent compelling and comparable decisions against Excel, when similar cases have been considered by POPLA

2. 'Unlawful Penalty Charge'

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with the UTCCR 1999, the CPUTR 2008, Equality Act 2010 and basic contract law.

3. 'Excel's legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices'

I would like to point out that, in their correspondence with me, Excel have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle using the car park. Nor that they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land at the Ashton retail park. The keeper has requested in a previous appeal to shown a copy of the contract between Excel and the land owner but none was provided with the excuse being that the contract was ‘commercially sensitive’
I require Excel to provide a copy of the contract in force that gives them authority to pursue motorists for such charges as they are demanding from me as required by section 7 of the British Parking Association.

4. 'ANPR Section Of The BPA Code Of Practice'

I wish to further contend that Excel have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras used at this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would 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, in its evidence.



5.'Trespass'

If there is no contract, then at most the keeper was guilty of a civil trespass. If this was the case, the keeper would be liable to damages. Given that the keeper did no damage to the car park and the car park was not full when I parked or when I left, because the occupants were there as customers of the outlets, It is suggested that there was no loss at all.


I respectfully request that this appeal to be allowed.

Kind Regards.

Richard Robinson

Guys_Dad

Apart from the wincing "yourself's" at the beginning of your letter, the link here to PE's £53 costs from posts #52 on may be of interest.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63687448#Comment_63687448

Redx

47 minuters needs the R removing

yourselfs is YOURSELVES , lol

so check for spelling errors

if Excel have sent you a copy of the redacted contract (which I doubt) then yes you could mention it , if its the blockbuster (gala bingo) car park I mentioned, but not if its the Peel Centre as that is the one in Stockport and I have no idea what their contract says

if you dont have a redacted contract copy, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW ?

you could state that you had heard this as hearsay and ask POPLA to check the documents if they are sent in by Excel to check if its a fact or not as a basis for one key point

if the PCN states Peel Centre Stockport and the contravention was actually Ashton Retail Park (gala bingo/blockbuster) then maybe you could state that its totally invalid due to the wrong location being identified ?

Ric02k13

Thanks, yeah the car park i parked on was Ashton Retail Park with the gala Bingo and Blockbuster. The letter from Excel does state Ashton Retail Park but further down the letter states Peel center. Will check for spelling ect...
Thanks alot for your time

Coupon-mad

Obviously as stated in the BPA CoP a POPLA verification code in required by law within 35 days of the initial appeal

I would remove that sentence as they don't have to supply a POPLA code 'by law'.

And I have added a bit more here:

I require Excel to provide a copy of the contract in force that gives them authority to form contracts with drivers and pursue charges in their own name as creditor in the courts, as required by section 7 of the British Parking Association.

And you haven't included anything about 'unclear signage which the driver did not see and so there was no contract formed whatsoever to pay any charge' - which we say ALWAYS include even if you cannot go back and check the signs. It then falls to Excel to have to come up with maps and sign photos which they could get wrong!


And you must add this bit somewhere but obviously don't say 'I was parked':

The car park in question was Ashton Retail Park with the gala Bingo and Blockbuster. The letter from Excel does state Ashton Retail Park but further down the letter states Peel Centre (a completely different retail park) which shows that they have used a template appeal rejection letter and have not considered the appeal properly despite having had it - and ignored it - since June, almost six months ago.

Ric02k13

OK so i'm going to send this off to POPLA tomorrow. Its been revised with all your advice and suggestions just want to make sure that everything is in there that i need.
Thank you for all your help once again.


Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: Excel Parking PCN number:#######
POPLA Code: ########

I’m writing to yourselves to appeal a parking charge notice (PCN) sent to me from Excel Parking Services on 07/06/2013. This alleged offence for ‘parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit’ was committed when my vehicle entered and exited a car park at the Ashton Retail park. The vehicle was parked there for a total of 47 minutes, between the hours of 14:16pm and 15:06pm. Excel themselves are demanding a payment of £100 for a 17 minute overstay

The car park in question was Ashton Retail Park with the gala Bingo and Blockbuster. The letter from Excel does state Ashton Retail Park but further down the letter states Peel Centre (a completely different retail park) which shows that they have used a template appeal rejection letter and have not considered the appeal properly despite having had it - and ignored it - since June, almost six months ago.

The Keeper of the vehicle initially appealed directly to Excel on 24/06/2013 seeking a cancellation of the penalty or a POPLA code. No other correspondence was received until 10/07/13 when a letter from Excel arrived with no POPLA code, demanding to know who was driving. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice. The Keeper sent another appeal on the 22/07/2013 to Excel again seeking a POPLA code. No other responses were received until the Keeper received a Liability notice dated 02/10/2013 again with no POPLA verification code attached. After another appeal was sent out on 20/10/2013 on behalf of the keeper, again stating reasons for the appeal and again requesting a POPLA code, one was finally received on the 22/11/2013.



I now want to set out why I'd like you to cancel this charge….


1. 'The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

Given that the duration of stay was recorded at 47 minutes with a free stay of 30 minutes, and the tariff set by the operator for a 1-2 hour stay is just £2, then the amount of the “penalty” imposed is highly disproportionate to any alleged “loss” by Excel Parking, and is therefore punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

The £100 charge (£60 if paid within 14 days) asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner for the time my car was parked there. The charge cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. In the appeal Excel did not address this issue, and have not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Excel has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and I would expect to add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement, signage erection, salaries and office rent) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

It was found in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Mr R Ibbotson (16th May 2012) that general business costs cannot constitute a loss and also has been held to be the case in a number of very recent compelling and comparable decisions against Excel, when similar cases have been considered by POPLA

2. 'Unlawful Penalty Charge'

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with the UTCCR 1999, the CPUTR 2008, Equality Act 2010 and basic contract law.

3. 'Excel's legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices'

I would like to point out that, in their correspondence with me, Excel have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle using the car park. Nor that they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land at the Ashton retail park.
The keeper has requested in a previous appeal to be shown a copy of the contract between Excel and the land owner but none was provided with the excuse being that the contract was ‘commercially sensitive’
I require Excel to provide a copy of the contract in force that gives them authority to form contracts with drivers and pursue charges in their own name as creditor in the courts, as required by section 7 of the British Parking Association.

4. ‘Unclear signage which does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice’

Firstly the signage is unclear because it states that 'tickets must be displayed at all times', yet the signs also state that 'no tickets are required for stays under 30 minutes', clearly both statements can't be true.
Further to this I would like to state that any signage present at this site, which is required to inform users of the car park of any regulations that must be complied with in order to use this facility, are obviously inadequate and unclear. Due to the lack of clear signage the keeper has been confused about any terms and conditions that may have been in place regarding the use of this car park and is absolutely unaware of forming any contract with Excel. Had sufficient signage been in place at this site then this whole situation could have been avoided.

5. 'ANPR Section Of The BPA Code Of Practice'

I wish to further contend that Excel have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras used at this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would 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, in its evidence.


6.'Trespass'

If there is no contract, then at most the keeper was guilty of a civil trespass. If this was the case, the keeper would be liable for damages. Given that the keeper did no damage to the car park and the car park was not full when the car in question was parked or when it left, because the occupants were there as customers of the outlets, it is suggested that there was no loss at all.


I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

Kind Regards.

The keeper

Redx

firstly, I would edit out your name above !!

also, the signage is also unclear because it states that tickets must be displayed at all times, yet also says no tickets are required for stays under 30 minutes, clearly both statements cannot be true

also, having read another one on here just now, consider this below and then maybe amend yours accordingly , including the unredacted copy of the contract, as they send out redacted ones

No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contract/s or charge drivers.
As the operator is not the owner of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish the operator to provide me with a full unredacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives the operator the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name. This was shown to be the case by District Judge Mcllwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, case No 1SE0984916.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, the operator has breached the BPA Code of Practice Section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.

Coupon-mad

Ric02k13 wrote: »

''Due to the lack of clear signage the keeper has been confused about any terms and conditions that may have been in place regarding the use of this car park and is absolutely unaware of forming any contract with Excel.''

NOPE, NOT THE KEEPER IN THAT SENTENCE, NOT WHEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE DRIVER DID! Try this:

Due to the lack of clear signage the driver was unaware of any terms and conditions relating to having to display a ticket just to accept the offer by the landowner/occupier of 45 minutes free parking and, as such, cannot under contract law have formed any contract with Excel.

And I agree with redx that the quoted paragraph 'Nolandowner contract nor legal standing to form contract/s or charge drivers' is stronger than your 'Excel's legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices'.

Best of luck!