Newbie help, excel peel centre, awaiting POPLA results

BullTerrierFan

Haven't heard back from them yet, so no popla code etc yet.

Is this length of delay normal when dealing with this firm?

Coupon-mad

They should respond within 35 days of receiving your appeal (so some time this month).

BullTerrierFan

I have just received my popla code, they seem to have left it to the last minute.

I'm under no illusion that appealing on the grounds of not seeing the signage will be a waste of time and a poor argument, so I best get a letter together, although I'm tempted to pay up.

Coupon-mad

Tempted to pay up at the very point when you have the golden ticket of the POPLA code!!!!!!

Even this newbie is more confident than you are after six weeks of posting about it (surely you have taken on board the fact we win 100% of POPLA appeals here?)! Examples by newbies who have now submitted robust POPLA appeals in circumstances similar to yours at the Peel Centre:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4794571

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63112946#Comment_63112946

You are NOT just saying the signs were poor. I predict they will be beaten on the fact that their charge was not wholly a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

HTH

bondy_lad

bull terrier,listen to me,,take coupon mads advice,,tempted to pay up???? you cannot be serious (who once said that) i digress,you are on a winner against these scammers and their fake tickets,just remember your name,,bull terrier,now off you go and behave like one and spank the b stards.

BullTerrierFan

Cheers Guys, I was feeling tired last night, I've gave my head a wobble and will compile a letter, then post it here for you great people to check over for me.

Guys_Dad

Good. Remember you are a Bull Terrier Fan, not a lap dog fancier !!!!!

We will get you through POPLA.

BullTerrierFan

Dear POPLA adjudicator,
RE: Excel Parking PCN number xxxxxxxxx
POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx

I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by Excel Parking. This occurred after my vehicle entered and exited a car park at the Peel Center in Stockport, on **/08/2013. The vehicle was parked there for 77 Minutes, between the hours of *:**pm - *:**pm. Excel claim that the vehicle's driver owes them £100 (reduced to £60 if early payment is made) for not displaying a Pay and Display ticket.

The driver and the passengers of the vehicle were not from the area and spotted the kfc outlet while passing by. They have never encountered a retail park where parking is chargeable hence not looking for signage or purchasing a ticket.

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

Accordingly, I politely ask you to check whether or not Excel have provided a signed copy of an up-to date, contract or agreement with the landowner – one which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts. I would require this is an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists.

'Trespass'

If there is no contract, then at most I was guilty of a civil trespass. If this was the case, I would be liable to damages. Given that I 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.

'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.

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

Given that the duration of stay was recorded at **minutes, and the tariff set by the operator for a 1-2 hour stay is just £1, 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.

'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.

I respectfully request that this appeal to be allowed.

Kind Regards.


Hoes this for a first draft?

Guys_Dad

Bit wordy, too polite for my taste, but it's all there so yes.

On the pre-estimate of loss, you need to say that you put them to strict proof of the make up of the charge that they are demanding showing that it does NOT contain any of the operating costs you identified.

Also change "Accordingly, I politely ask you to check whether or not Excel have provided............." to "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 Code of Practice"

On layout, number the various appeal points, use a bit of BOLD text on the headings.

Well done.

BullTerrierFan

Dear POPLA adjudicator,
RE: Excel Parking PCN number xxxxxxxxx
POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx

I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by Excel Parking. This occurred after my vehicle entered and exited a car park at the Peel Center in Stockport, on **/08/2013. The vehicle was parked there for 77 Minutes, between the hours of *:**pm - *:**pm. Excel claim that the vehicle's driver owes them £100 (reduced to £60 if early payment is made) for not displaying a Pay and Display ticket.

The driver and the passengers of the vehicle were not from the area and spotted the kfc outlet while passing by. They have never encountered a retail park where parking is chargeable hence not looking for signage or purchasing a ticket.

I now want to set out why I'd like you to cancel this charge….
.
1. '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 peel center in Stockport.
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 Code of Practice.



2.'Trespass'

If there is no contract, then at most I was guilty of a civil trespass. If this was the case, I would be liable to damages. Given that I 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.

3. '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.

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

Given that the duration of stay was recorded at **minutes, and the tariff set by the operator for a 1-2 hour stay is just £1, 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.

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.

I respectfully request that this appeal to be allowed.

Kind Regards.

Ok, revised, any input from the other peeps? Many thanks.