Popla appeal advice

Mufasa_2

Hello all
I am after some advice regarding my POPLA appeal as my appeal was declined surprise surprise. My query is having done a bit of reading on here I came across the similar incident as my own (same car park and problem) which has had the appeal allowed.
So do I ? use the same letter (cheeky ) or do I need to write a new one altogether

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I would write a very similar one if it were me, but in my own words (not implying who was driving of course)!

POPLA appeals information on 'how to win', 'what to include' and linked examples:

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

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

HTH

Mufasa_2

Thanks for the reply am writing similar letter just different order of appeal points,
I noticed that the actual ticket has issued by xxxxx then company and vat number ......
Then says on behalf of xxxxx
Both numbers belong to the ppc not the issuer ?
There's a typo error on the ticket name as well
Are these valid points to raise?

Thank again

Guys_Dad

Ignore typos, I suggest.

Put your POPLA appeal up here if you want it checked. (Recommended)

Mufasa_2

popla appeal

Appeal against the parking charge notice xxxxxxxx issued by VINCI on 08.08.2013, as a valid ticket was purchased, displayed in vehicle and was shown to the parking enforcement officer who was on site
I contend that the signs and any core parking terms VINCI are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request POPLA check the Operator’s evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach.
Main entrance signage states “If you park in this car park you will be liable to pay in full applicable charges shown on the tariff board without set –off or deduction”
“No discount offered for prompt payment offered on the signage, that “up to” could mean anything from 1p to £100”.
Sign by ticket machine reads “valid permit holders must display a valid permit in front windscreen at all time” and doesn’t state “face upwards”.
2) I contend that no breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss were incurred as a valid ticket was provided as proof of payment. Neither can VINCI lawfully include their day to day operational costs in any loss claimed. Charges must be reasonable and compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver. VINCI has failed in this case to provide any calculation to show how the £100 figure has been arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss.
The sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whether no permit was displayed or a car was improperly parked. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £50 on days 1-14 then £100 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by VINCI.
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999):
Private Parking Charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of 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 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”.

VINCI do not own this car park and assume to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their rejection letter VINCI has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of the land in question.
I require VINCI to supply POPLA with a signed and dated copy of the contract/site agreement with the owner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check it specifically enables this operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I contend that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
It does not give VINCI park the legal standing to allege trespass or contract seeing as the consideration of parking places is already expressly offered by the owner/occupier.

The appellant therefore invites the adjudicator to uphold the appeal and cancel the parking charge.

Coupon-mad

Pretty good for a first draft, relevant and succinct.

What does this bit mean, below, are the speech marks in the wrong place as you seem to have included your argument in the quotations about the wording on the sign? Too many speech marks maybe?

Main entrance signage states “If you park in this car park you will be liable to pay in full applicable charges shown on the tariff board without set –off or deduction”
“No discount offered for prompt payment offered on the signage, that “up to” could mean anything from 1p to £100”.

Mufasa_2

ok cool, will leave out speech marks ....
any more recommendations before i commit

thank you

Coupon-mad

Check you have everything suggested in Custard Pie's thread:

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

and Guy's Dad's thread:

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

and I think I would add to this sentence:

Sign by ticket machine reads “valid permit holders must display a valid permit in front windscreen at all times” and doesn’t state “face upwards”. The driver did comply with the sign as worded so there was no breach of terms.

And are there NO flaws or BPA breaches in the PCN at all? Nothing missed from this checklist for a private ticket?

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

Look at 'The Parking Ticket (aka Notice to Driver)'




HTH

Mufasa_2

Hi all
Just wanted to say many thanks to all for the advise and I'm delighted to say my appeal was upheld , will try and post Judgement on the POPLA decision thread

Coupon-mad

Well done - yes please post it up by copying & pasting the decision including the assessor's name! I have added a link but we'd like to see the detail please.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63673402#Comment_63673402

Nice to see another Vinci one.