Popla Appeal do I have a chance of winnig it?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Much better.

Remove most of the paragraph about putting customer first. You don't need to mention about not being able to get a ticket.

But on the whole will do fine

zzzLazyDaisy

I would suggest moving the paragraphs round so that 'genuine pre-estimate of loss', and 'no contract' come first - based on the principle of always making it as easy as possible for the decision maker to rule in your favour.

Notappcfan

Is it better like this or shall I just cut of the whole 'BPa entry, exit payment system' quote? Also if I ask for the service level agreement for Dash and it turns out they did indeed were 24/7 would that not doom my appeal in the sense that the PPC could argue I had a problem with my phone which did not allow me to reach Dash who were available? I did ring a hell of a long time on both occassions and got cut off both times after a long while. Also regarding my previous question about photographs, should I send or not send? And lastly could I truly win without the not being able to get a parking ticket paragraph? I am really sorry to be bothering all of you with so many questions, I just want to get this done and out of the way successfully. I would have done so badly without you guys, thank you!
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA assessor,

RE: Premier Park PCN number POPLA code

On the 10th of August Premier Park issued a parking charge notice of £100 because the above vehicle was not displaying a valid dashboard virtual ticket. I appeal on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge, as I was not given an opportunity to pay for my parking due to a defective payment system, poor signage on the car park which failed to form a contract, the 'parking charge' not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss and questions over the proprietary interest of Premier Park in the land..[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Poor signage that failed to form a contract with the driver[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B which sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including ''[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The tablet ‘Premier Park’ had put in place to concur with this regulation, obstructed by an overflowing bin, when the vehicle was being parked. It was also very badly lit, making it impossible for the driver to see, let alone read it. All other signage in the car park was also in badly lit areas, hidden from the most obvious places a driver would look. Not displaying their signs in obvious locations where a driver cannot miss them, goes against the BPA Operational Requirements Section 18.1 and 18.2 which states: ‘’In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.’’ [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Premier Park had a duty to make the terms of the contract so clear that they cannot be missed. To fail in this respect means that the elements of a contract have not been met. For Premier Park to suggest a breach of contract, they must prove that the appellant has read the terms of the contract and accepted them. Premier Park as the supposed car park manager had the responsibility to ensure that all signs were clearly visible and unobstructed, which they failed to do. The appellant as a result did not see the alleged terms, hence no valid contract was formed. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]'The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have charged me £3.80 for the time my car was parked there. The £97.20 difference between the parking charge and the parking charge notice cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. In the appeal Premier Park 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 Premier Park has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these expenses would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Payment system did not give the opportunity to register the vehicle and pay for the parking[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] The BPA state: Parking systems and equipment deployed to control entry, exit and payment for parking should be in operation and motorists provided with the means to comply with any requirements for payment. To undertake enforcement action of any kind when this was not the case would be unfair’. After the vehicle was parked, late at night (approximately 22:45) in the car park, ‘Dash’ has been contacted to register the vehicle and pay the parking fee via phone as required. After two unanswered phone calls to Dash, it was assumed that the offices were closed given the late hour of the day. The tablet displaying the payment instructions did not specify whether the Dash call centers had a 24/7 opening time and no alternative means of registration were provided. The belief was that an opportunity would be presented to pay for the parking in the morning, the assumption being, the offices would have a standard 9am opening time. The ticket was however issued before 9am, hence there was no opportunity to pay. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Premier Park should provide a service level agreement to show if ‘Dash’ call centers were in fact open 24/7 to allow car registration.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Proprietary Interest[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The appellant does not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Premier Park any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Premier Park 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

The appellant believes 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 Premier Park. The appellant expects Premier Park to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Lastly it must once again be stressed that an attempt was made to pay the parking ticket. Due to the inability to reach ‘Dash’ via phone and register the vehicle, and the payment signage in the car park not stating alternative means of registration, he was unable to do so.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Due to these reasons the ‘Parking Charge Notice’ should be politely dismissed.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

''Premier Park issued a parking charge notice of £100 because the above vehicle was not displaying a valid dashboard virtual ticket.''

Did the PCN actually say the word 'virtual' on it? If not then remove the word 'virtual' from that line, replace it with whatever the PCN actually said the 'contravention' was, and make a brief point that with virtual payments it is not possible to display a ticket on the dashboard, so the contravention cannot have occurred at all.

''Also if I ask for the service level agreement for Dash and it turns out they did indeed were 24/7 would that not doom my appeal in the sense that the PPC could argue I had a problem with my phone which did not allow me to reach Dash who were available? I did ring a hell of a long time on both occassions and got cut off both times after a long while. Also regarding my previous question about photographs, should I send or not send? And lastly could I truly win without the not being able to get a parking ticket paragraph?''

I think you should ask for the SLR with Dash because I am convinced the PPC will refuse to show it (and POPLA will get them on that point as well as 'not a genuine estimate of any loss' and probably, not showing a contract with the landowner either).

However, I would get rid of this line as it lends nothing to your side of the appeal:

[STRIKE]
''The belief was that an opportunity would be presented to pay for the parking in the morning, the assumption being, the offices would have a standard 9am opening time. The ticket
was however issued before 9am, hence there was no opportunity to pay.''
[/STRIKE]


...and I would change the 'assumed' word here as well:

''After two unanswered phone calls to Dash, [STRIKE]it was assumed that the offices were closed''[/STRIKE]

maybe instead:

''After two unanswered phone calls to Dash, it was apparent to me that their offices were closed which meant that there was no mechanism to make payment until office hours. Of course, Premier Park placed a ticket on the car before 9am which gave me no opportunity to make payment.''

Notappcfan

Yes, the ticket actually specifies 'no permit on display' as the reason. The letter from the ppc says I had 'not had a permit' in the windscreen area, as I had not purchased a virtual permit (they apparently have photographic evidence of this, which now does sound strange). In my letter to them I did actually admit that I couldnt buy the ticket, so I do not know if I could successfully argue there being no contravention.... i am so stupid :mad: The changes you are suggesting are really good thank you! Also I am sorry to be sounding a bit like a parrot, but is it advisable to send photographic evidence, or should I just simply send the letter.

Also if I do incorporate the no contravention could it work like this?

[FONT=&quot]On the 10th of August Premier Park issued a parking charge notice of £100 because the above vehicle did not have a permit on display, which would suggest no contravention actually occurred, as the car park requires ‘virtual permits’ that one cannot display on the car dashboard. [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yes you have put that well as a change to the introduction of your appeal, that works!

And I wouldn't bother with photos, personally (not unless they are important for your case?).

IMHO you will win as long as you have the usual winning stuff about 'no pre-estimate of loss' and 'no contract with the landowner that allows them to offer parking, make contracts nor pursue 'charges' to the courts in their own name as creditor'. And you have got those points plus others.

AnnieO1234

Maybe in being naive but don't PPCs usually have a pay and display machine as well as these phone line payments?

Coupon-mad

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Maybe in being naive but don't PPCs usually have a pay and display machine as well as these phone line payments?

Obviously not in this case - and most PPCs do not have P&D machines at all.

Notappcfan

Not on that car park, it would have saved me a lot of trouble if they had a P&D. I am thinking about sending the photo of the main sign which is placed as you enter the car park but as I said at the time of parking it was obstructed and poorly lit. But if you believe photos are unimportant, I will leave it.

Coupon-mad

Notappcfan wrote: »

Not on that car park, it would have saved me a lot of trouble if they had a P&D. I am thinking about sending the photo of the main sign which is placed as you enter the car park but as I said at the time of parking it was obstructed and poorly lit. But if you believe photos are unimportant, I will leave it.

One photo showing how unreadable the sign is, and how poorly lit/obstructed it was, wouldn't go amiss if it is supporting one of the paragraphs in your POPLA appeal.