TPS ticket in Halfords Sutton, advice appreciated

Custard_Pie

maverickpianist84 wrote: »

Would POPLA contact TPS to ask them to cease sending any further letters?

PoPLA are an "independent" tribunal panel who have no legal standing. They will rule based upon the evidence presented to them from both sides. A decision will be made as long as it's not due to mitigation. If you lose then it's not legally binding and the PPC would still have to take you to Court if you don't pay up. If you win, then the PPC are bound to cancel the charge.

Custard_Pie

maverickpianist84 wrote: »

I need some advice on a TPS ticket that was issued to me.

By the way, it's a request for monies based upon an alleged contractual breach between you and the PPC. It's not a ticket, fine or penalty. Only the Police and Council appointed Wardens can legally issue them. It's not even an invoice as it's not identified as such and doesn't include a VAT number. It may sound anal, but it's important to get the terminology correct to understand the difference between the two.

Coupon-mad

maverickpianist84 wrote: »

Excellent stuff. I know the appeal wasn't exactly great so I am expecting they will throw it out anyway, at which point I will have to come back here for more advice...

Hang on. You say you've sent a weak POPLA appeal? Then add to it now!!!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62523345#Comment_62523345

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

Send follow-up 'further evidence for POPLA appeal number xxxxxxxxxx submitted on xx/7/13' and post it to POPLA and to the PPC next week. Work on it for a few days, to make it good evidence so that you turn a weak POPLA appeal into a winner.

Do not let them win as there IS NO OTHER ADVICE EXCEPT TO IGNORE THE PPC AND HOPE TO AVOID COURT. This is your chance to cancel the thing so seize it!

maverickpianist84

This is a resurrection of my thread, POPLA wrote about a week ago saying they had finally rejected my appeal. Obviously the gloating letter from TPS swiftly followed. HOWEVER...

Over Christmas I revisited the scene of the 'crime' to buy screenwash. There were no spaces at Halfords Sutton so I waited in the car with hazards on for one to become available. Sure enough a mother and two young children came back to their car, clutching none other than 7-8 bags of Asda shopping from the giant superstore next door. I was livid, but more to the point there was a TPS employee in attendance. When I asked him why he wasn't issuing them a ticket, he said "because they went in Halfords first". Whereas my crime was to go do Asda first, Halfords second. So there you have it. TPS actively discriminate against single young men in favour of those with kids. Because this incident occurred over Christmas whilst the appeal was being considered at POPLA there was no way for me to inform them of it. I ought to be going to local media with this.... what actual options, if any, do I have though to cancel this stupid ticket??

Umkomaas

Did you not add to your appeal as per Coupon-mad's advice in post #24?

POPLA is binding on the PPC but not on the motorist. So your only options now are:

1. Ignore any further correspondence from TPS (or their debt collectors) and only take further action (with advice from here) if they serve a a Letter Before Claim or court papers. For the prospect of TPS doing court, read here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/179544/response/444525/attach/3/A%20FINAL%20REPLY%20TO%20LEWIS%2085865.doc

2. Complain to Halfords (who have a good track record of helping the motorist in these situations) and Asda (who are not so helpful). Please read the forum sticky on 'Successful complaints .....' to give you processes to follow, here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4766249

3. Pay - which I'm sure you don't want to be doing, otherwise you wouldn't be here asking for advice.

Stroma

What wording did you use for popla, can you post it up? If you used mitigation why? If you didn't seek help with the wording why?

Thanks

maverickpianist84

Stroma, glad to. Appeal as sent to POPLA on 20/07/13:

Dear POPLA The reason the TPS notice had been issued was that I was "observed leaving the site whilst the vehicle remained parked on the premises" and that "the vehicle was parked between 13:35 and 14:07". Whilst I did leave the site, albeit briefly, there is nothing in their displayed rules and regulations to say that a customer of Halfords may only shop at Halfords and nowhere else. My intention was to quickly get some items from the nearby Asda, return to put the shopping in the car and then buy the items I needed at Halfords. The alternative was to first drive to Halfords, then Asda and return to Halfords which is obviously a less efficient journey. The only time I left the Halfords car park was on my arrival at 13:35, as the notice says, and therefore I conclude the motive behind issuing the notice wasn't the length of time I stayed in that car park per se, but rather that I had not bought anything in the Halfords store. I am suspicious of this notice for two main reasons: (1) I returned to the Halfords car park before 14:07 to find the notice issued. (2) When I left the car park, there was nobody walking around. So how could a parking attendant possibly know that I had left the car park? I acknowledge that my appeal is a couple of days over the 28 day limit and I apologise for this as I had been away on business. I would be grateful if you could still consider my case. Sincerely...

===

Also sent, again on 20/07/13:

I would like to add some information to my appeal that was recently submitted, and apologise for not including this originally.

Vehicle Reg: xxxx xxx

Additionally, I am contending that anyone claiming damages for breach of contract must "mitigate their loss", that is, they must do what they can to reduce their losses. TPS is effectively claiming that a visit to a neighbouring supermarket cost them £90, but of course they could have reduced that loss to zero if their employee who observed me leaving the site had simply called after you and warned you of the consequences of leaving. Therefore, they failed to mitigate their losses.

===

POPLAs final decision was sent 20/12/13:

The Operator issued parking charge notice number xxxxxxxxxxxx arising
out of the presence at Halfords, Sutton, on 18 May 2013, of a vehicle
with registration mark xxxxxxx.
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor considered the evidence of both parties and determined
that the appeal be refused.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
In order to avoid any further action by the operator, payment of the
£90 parking charge should be made within 14 days.
Details of how to pay will appear on previous correspondence from the
operator.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
On 18 May 2013, a Silver xxxxxxxxx with the registration mark xxxxxxx was observed in the Halfords Car Park.
It is the Operator’s case that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the car park and at entrance, and by leaving the premises the Appellant caused a breach of the following condition; “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections regularly carried out”.
The Appellant’ case is that he was a customer of Halfords but also visited the nearby Asda Supermarket. The Appellant submits that “there is nothing in their displayed rules and regulations to say that a customer of Halfords may only shop at Halfords and nowhere else”. The Appellant further adds that the Operator could have mitigated their loss by the parking attendance calling the Appellant back and warning him of the consequences.

I understand the Appellant’s frustration and the explanation that the
Appellant was visiting both stores on the occasion. However I must explain the signs at the site that state “Do not leave the premises at any time whilst your vehicle is parked in this car park. Inspections regularly carried out” –means that when parking at this car park, you must not leave the premises, i.e the Halfords store or the car park, and if you wish to use any other stores you may not leave your car parked in this car park. I further add that when parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility, not the parking attendant’s, to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking. The parking attendant is not required to speak to motorists and explain the terms and conditions of the car park when they are clearly displayed.

Considering all the facts before me, I find that, by failing to abide by the
terms for parking, the Appellant became liable for a parking charge notice.

Unfortunately, I must refuse this appeal.

Marina Kapour
Assessor

Stroma

Well I'm going to be blunt here, your appeal was awful and on mitigation mostly, though if the signage didn't say in one of the terms that leaving the site incurs a charge how you supposed to know? Did you supply images of this ? And did TPS in their pack to you?

maverickpianist84

TPS supplied one image, which rather ironically was not of the Halfords site in question. I don't have a filesharing server so can't link here... suffice it to say in their image the maximum permitted stay is 60 mins vs my permitted stay of 30 mins. The signage did, however, warn "not to leave the premises at any time whilst vehicle(s) are parked in the car park. Inspections regularly carried out." Which neatly returns me to my point from 9:20pm post... how is it ok for a young mum to flaunt the rules but not me? How do TPS justify this?

Coupon-mad

What a waste of time and what a missed opportunity even though I told you how to rescue it. What happened to you looking at the links I gave you and picking out the wining points to email which were in the links! You would have won with: ' NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS' and 'the PPC 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 just fished those two sentences straight toff the links I gave you in July.

There is little more to say except you will now have to ignore lots of threatograms from debt collectors or TPS and watch out in case they decide to try a small claim. Which would need a proper defence. You have burnt your boats and are now in ignore mode except if a court letter arrives.