How to appeal parking ticket

Umkomaas

Danny30 wrote: »

Hi everyone, I have just received my rejection letter as was expected. Now comes the more difficult part for me of writing a letter to POPLA.
Can you please help me to figure out what I should write in this letter?

At the time in question I parked in a car park of a store that I didn't use so that may change my appeal points (is that considered trespass), and is there anywhere that I can copy and paste the relevant sections as I am not very confident of writing a strong letter myself?

Thanks

Trespass would be great, as all they could claim for would be for any damage caused by your trespass, they certainly won't want to go down that route (unless you've taken a JCB to the shop frontage and have conveniently forgotten to tell us :rotfl:).

For help with commencing your POPLA appeal here are some starting points:

MSE's Custard Pie has started to develop this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4739845

And Guy's Dad's recommended insert for any POPLA appeal:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4739105

From Pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=23391

However, before randomly copy and pasting you do really need to develop some understanding so take a bit of time assimilating things, but don't lose sight of the 28 day deadline to get your appeal to POPLA.

Do your first draft and post it here so regulars can help you fine tune things.

HTH

Guys_Dad

Did you get a POPLA code ????

Your appeal has to be a bit different. As Unkomaas says and we suspected before, this is not a contractual case.

You were a trespasser and the fact that it was for Boots Customers only and the the other fact that your ticket said you were entitled to park for zero hours and minutes means that the terms and conditions that apply to those who do contract with the PPC and are shopping at Boots can NOT apply to you.

For a contract, there has to be an offer and acceptance.

(I wish zzzlazydaisy was around to put a legal slant on this one).

So, all they are entitled to sue for is trespass and damage.

Your appeal to POPLA can contain signage, right conferred by contract, but I don't think the estimate of costs applies as what you are being hit with is a penalty of sorts for trespass.

That's as far as I have got so far and need to look it up a bit more.

So hold off the POPLA appeal for now till we get some clarification on the trespass angle.

Danny30

(Please disregard other duplicate thread)

Hi, I have just received a letter from Parking Eye stating that my appeal have been denied. Hardly a suprize but I was hoping to get some help as to what I should write in my POPLA letter now.

I originally started a thread a couple of weeks back when I first received the parking eye invoice.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=4717353

Basically I parked in a well known retailers small car park whilst going elsewhere and received the fine for not shopping at the store in question. This was sent by post with a picture of my car entering and exiting the car park.
I was told by someone on this forum that it may be considered trespass and if so how would that change my appeal?

I also attached a picture of the sign in my last thread (URL above) if that of any help.


Anyway the letter I received today said the following.


"Dear Sir/Madam.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful. This is because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms and conditions on the signage. We also note that a number of your queries are of a generic nature, a number of which we have seen before"



Could you please help me on how to appeal this now and if possible if there is anywhere I can copy and paste certain sections as I am not confident of writing a strong response otherwise.


Thanks.

Danny30

please, any help would be great, really not sure what i'm doing :-)

Stroma

Follow the advice post #52 above, you need to do some work yourself on this as well. Take some ideas from the threads linked and post up a draft copy of the appeal and we'll run through it and suggest things for you.

Danny30

Ok, I will attempt a letter and post it here when i'm done.

Danny30

Before I attempt to start my letter does anyone have a link to a popla appeal letter that I could use an an example? Particularly if it's one where the person parked in a car park but didn't shop in that store.

Coupon-mad

But you won't be saying whether you shopped in the store so you don't need an example that matches. Also, unless you got the Planning Consent you don't even know if you 'have' to use that store anyway when parking (many retail car parks are for local shops {plural} including small businesses). You do not talk in any POPLA appeal about 'what happened' at all (unless it something obvious that helps the case); you talk about what the PPC did wrong!

Here you go:

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

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

You already had enough advice & links in post #52 IMHO from Umkomaas who also right added 'before randomly copy and pasting you do really need to develop some understanding so take a bit of time assimilating things, but don't lose sight of the 28 day deadline to get your appeal to POPLA.

Do your first draft and post it here so regulars can help you fine tune things.'

Danny30

Is this letter good enough. The parking fine was issued for parking on private land (trespass) so I hope the letter is suitable.

' Re: Parking Charge Notice (POPLA REF: *********)

On *******I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number *******. As the registered keeper of this vehicle I dispute and deny the charge for the reasons set out below:

1. No contract

There was no contract between the driver and Parking Eye. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

.
2. Trespass

If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty of a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this were the case, the driver may be liable to damages. Given that no ‘damage’ was done to the car park and that the car park was not completely full when the driver parked or when the driver left, there was in fact no loss at all.


3. No Landowners Contract

I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking Eye Ltd’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Parking Eye Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Parking Eye Ltd are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.


-I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking Eye Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Parking Eye Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it in the light of VCS -v- HMRC 2012.

Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Eye Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Eye Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.



The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.


4. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge

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, Parking Eye has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £60 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that Parking Eye has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case. Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the following matters are relevant:

4(a). Punitive

The parking charge Parking Eye is imposing is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable). The £60 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. This would also apply to any mention of any costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order.


4(b). Unfair

The £60 charge Parking Eye is imposing is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations which 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) says:

‘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), which 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 substance of the term.’




4(c). Unreasonable

The £60 parking charge Parking Eye is imposing is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:

‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

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”.


5. Genuine Loss.

Even if it is the case that a trespass was committed as Parking Eye have stated I would ask POPLA to request for me a full breakdown from Parking Eye of the actual loss that was suffered by the business or the landowner/landholder.




Yours Faithfully

**********

Umkomaas

Just a quick scan - looks fine. A couple of points:

Your para 1 re signs. Are you saying you saw no signs therefore no contract possible, or, that you saw the signs but could find no contractual detail on them? You need to be clear - if the latter, I think you might need photos to prove your point (although you could via POPLA to put PE to strict proof that they did confer a contract).

Your para 5 re genuine loss. I thnk you just need to beef that up a bit by stating that erection of signs, back office functions, membership of bodies (you can find the precise details on which PE rely probably in the POPLA sticky at the top of the forum index) are not losses, but normal busness costs. This is - to date - the POPLA silver bullet, so best to be as fully developed on this as possible.

Hold off sending (unless right up against the deadline) for 24 hours so to allow other regulars the opportunity to input.

HTH