POPLA appeal - supporting evidence

parking_mad_4

Hi
I'm just about to send an appeal to POPLA re a parking charge notice for £100. My offence was to overstay in a Parking Eye P&D car park by 11 minutes. I still have the parking ticket so can prove I paid for 3 hours parking. I have already appealed to Parking Eye which was of course rejected.

My question is whether or not to include a copy of the ticket with my appeal as one of the grounds I'm appealing on is that the PCN is unclear as to what the offence was (they are accusing me of either not purchasing the approriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted).
If I include the ticket as evidence then it will be clear that I remained at the car park for longer than permitted.

Should I send the ticket with the appeal or not?

Many thanks

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No you don't need to send it BUT pls post up your appeal before u send it! We don't want u to miss any winning points as popla don't do mitigation. Will give it read through for you

Guys_Dad

Looking at your summary of the POPLA appeal, I would strongly suggest you do the following 2 things,

1. Get back on to PE saying that they have 15 minute grace periods in some of their managed sites and that 11 minutes is well within the BPA Code of Practice. If they disagree, can you have a copy of their policy. see here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_CoP_June_2013_update.pdf

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’
in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the
driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave
before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period
at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave
the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action.

2. Please post up your POPLA appeal so that we can check you have the silver bullet points that you haven't mentioned in your post.

parking_mad_4

Here is my draft appeal. Most of it has been sourced from other posts on this and a couple of other websites. Many thanks to those whose work I have plagiarised


Dear POPLA,

APPEAL RE: Parking Eye PCN number XXXXXXXX POPLA code XXXXXXXX
Tower Road, Newquay Car Park XXXXXXX, VEHICLE REG: XXXXXXXX

On the XXXXXXXXX Parking Eye issued a parking charge notice of £100 because vehicle XXXXXXX was allegedly recorded on the automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed at the Tower Road car park in Newquay for X hours X minutes. This appeal is on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge, the vehicle was not improperly parked and the 'parking charge' exceeds the appropriate amount.


Parking Eye is requiring payment from me as the Registered Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I say they have not met all the conditions imposed by this Act and so there is no obligation or liability on me at all. In addition they have failed to show that this standard fixed charge in that car park is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, have not formed any fair contract with the driver to justify the amount demanded and have not complied with all aspects of the BPA Code of Practice.


1. NO EVIDENCE OF PARKING TIME OR SUFFICIENT DETAIL OF CONTRAVENTION
A registered keeper like myself cannot make an informed decision based on a couple of photos of a car driving in and out of the entrance area of a car park at different times and no clear explanation of the alleged contravention.

The Operator is relying simply on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving. These pictures show no evidence at all of actual parking time or where the car was after driving in. The Operator has not even explained the breach. Did the driver not purchase appropriate parking time or did the car remain in the car park for longer than permitted?

The postal parking charge notice fails to clarify the issue and so it is a nullity, since it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


2. ANPR REQUIREMENTS- PART 21 OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part21 (ANPR). I need POPLA to consider whether the Operator has shown documented evidence of contemporaneous manual checks of the cameras, clocks and related machinery in that particular car park. These maintenance checks are a requirement of section 21 of the Code.


3.CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
Parking Eye have also not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

Parking Eye must provide documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists). Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Parking Eye the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor.


4. UNCLEAR & NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE FORMING NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVERS
I believe the signs and any core parking terms Parking Eye are relying upon were unclear in all respects. This Operator needs to show POPLA their evidence and signage map/photos specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance.
I believe the signs and any core parking terms Parking Eye are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park.

There are no low-positioned, clear signs on entry to this car park which would have communicated the terms & conditions of parking there to a seated driver in moving traffic. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B which sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including ''The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead'' and ''There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read...''

I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park and any consequences for breach, as was found in a comparable camera-reliant car park in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.

Parking Eye have a duty to make the terms so clear that they cannot be missed. To fail in this respect means that the elements of a contract have not been met. To suggest a breach of contract, Parking Eye also needs to show that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which they cannot do as it is clearly untrue. The idea that any driver would accept these terms to pay this charge knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. The truth is that the driver did not see, understand nor accept the alleged terms. Parking Eye may claim that generic signage is displayed around the car park but this does not meet the BPA Code of Practice rules nor the requirements for consideration when forming an alleged contract.

Parking Eye needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.


In Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB177 Lord Denning MR at 182 dealt with the question whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in but was obvious when paying for parking at the end, and where the plaintiff had parked often before. He said:
“He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.”

So in addition, because the signs fail to properly inform drivers of the full terms & conditions in a very prominent place at a low enough height at the entrance, the elements of a contract have not been met. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

Parking Eye do not provide signage of sufficient written text size or at a suitable height to be read from the vehicle at the entrance or at any location on the premises. They may claim that generic signage is displayed around the car park on poles but this does not meet the requirements for consideration when forming the alleged contract. I suggest Parking Eye need clear signs and means for a driver to read the full terms and to make payment with a machine at the entrance to the car park if they wish to try to establish a contract requiring payment in exchange for a parking space here.


5. NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Parking Eye are on record from a letter to a third party which is in the public domain, as having stated in 2013 that all their charges are based on 'breach of contract'. In addition, I understand that Parking Eye have told the DVLA that they have had 'reasonable cause' to continuously obtain data by a permanent EDI link due to issuing tickets for 'breach of contract'.

So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Operators cannot lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs such as staff, signs, cameras, uniforms etc in any 'loss' claimed. 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.

It is not clear whether Parking Eye are suggesting that the driver did not purchase appropriate parking time or that the car remained in the car park for longer than permitted, but in either case any 'loss' could only be the amount of the payment due for 22 minutes parking, which would be a nominal amount, not the fixed standard charge on all their tickets at this car park. No matter what the contravention alleged I believe the ticket amount is always the same on this site which calls into question the basis for the charge.

Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) is a relevant and persuasive case. At the Parking Eye v Smith hearing the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.


6. UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket.

Private parking tickets unrelated to any genuine loss are unenforceable penalties, as was found in the Parking Eye v Smith case I have already mentioned and also in Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review decision by Circuit Judge, February 2011), and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd, Lord Dunedin offered as tests which might prove "helpful, or even conclusive":

"(A) It will be held to be penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach..….

(B) It will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid …..

(C) There is a presumption (but no more) that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

And in Lordsvale Finance Plc v. Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, 762G,
discussing Dunlop:

"whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provision was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent party for breach. That the contractual function is deterrent rather than compensatory can be deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred."

This statement has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Murray v Leisureplay plc [2005] IRLR 946.

And from the Office of Fair Trading, Guidance re Unfair Contract Terms:
''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''


7. BREACH OF UTCCR 1999
Finally, I believe Parking Eye are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR):

Schedule 2, paragraph 1:
...terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect of:

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

Unfair Terms
5.—(1) 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.

(2) 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.


CONCLUSION

In considering the evidence in my appeal, I believe POPLA should order that this unjustified charge is cancelled.


Yours faithfully,

parking_mad_4

By the way, I did tell Parking Eye in my original appeal to them that my overstay was only for 11 minutes and this was caused by arriving back slightly late from a boat trip. I think they add on to that the 10 minutes from when I entered the car park to when I bought a ticket (busy summer day, time to find a space, find and read the signs, sort out change etc - very unfair.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Its very very lenghy and should only be three paragraphs at most.

You should just get to the point straight away on:

Not a genuine pre estimate of loss (ask for break down for loss at this site)
No contract exists. Ask to see actually contract, quote previous case where popla have ruled against witness statements

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/assessor-rules-lead-adjudictors-witness.html

GermanKeeper

parking_mad wrote: »

7. BREACH OF UTCCR 1999
Finally, I believe Parking Eye are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR):

Unfair Terms
5.—(1) 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.

As this is a very abstract regulation, it needs some explanation and interpretation. Since it coincides with the "Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts"
Article 3.1 (available on the eur-lex.europa.eu website)
it has to be interpreted in accordance with this EU-regulation.
Therefore it may be helpful to mention the following Jugdement of the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg
C‑415/11 - Aziz from 14th March 2013:
(available on curia.europa.eu)

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:
– the concept of ‘significant imbalance’ to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out;
– in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.

So if the national laws say that one has to pay only for the actual loss or damage, then I think a term in the contract which forces the consumer to pay a sum which is disproportional to the pre-estimated cost of loss (or damage) has to be considered as unfair.

The formulation "must be interpreted" means that a national court which allows no further appeals to its decision has to ask the European Court in Luxemburg for authorization if it wants to interprete it in another way.

Schedule 2, paragraph 1:
...terms may be unfair if they have the object or effect of:

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

This coincides with Point (e) in the Annex of the European directive.
I am wondering why the British parliament has formulated "may be unfair" instead of "are unfair". The Annex of the European directive is a suggestion to the member states. But the parliament should make rules and not hand over these suggestions to the national jugdes.

Coupon-mad

parking_mad wrote: »

By the way, I did tell Parking Eye in my original appeal to them that my overstay was only for 11 minutes and this was caused by arriving back slightly late from a boat trip. I think they add on to that the 10 minutes from when I entered the car park to when I bought a ticket (busy summer day, time to find a space, find and read the signs, sort out change etc - very unfair.

I wrote that long POPLA appeal you based yours on and I don't do short appeals! It's up to you but make sure you have the main appeal points (which that one does, even though it's long).

parking_mad_4

Here is my revised POPLA appeal. I have shortened it a little and added a point about invalid witness statements and grace periods.

Dear POPLA,

APPEAL RE: Parking Eye PCN number XXXXXXXX POPLA code XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX Car Park XXXXXXX, VEHICLE REG: XXXXXXXX

On the XXXXXXXXX Parking Eye issued a parking charge notice of £100 because vehicle XXXXXXX was allegedly recorded on the automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed at the XXXXXXX car park in XXXXXX for X hours X minutes. This appeal is on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge, the vehicle was not improperly parked and the 'parking charge' exceeds the appropriate amount.


Parking Eye is requiring payment from me as the Registered Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I say they have not met all the conditions imposed by this Act and so there is no obligation or liability on me at all. In addition they have failed to show that this standard fixed charge in that car park is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, have not formed any fair contract with the driver to justify the amount demanded and have not complied with all aspects of the BPA Code of Practice.


1. NO EVIDENCE OF PARKING TIME OR SUFFICIENT DETAIL OF CONTRAVENTION

The Operator is relying simply on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving. These pictures show no evidence at all of actual parking time or where the car was after driving in.
The Operator has not even given a clear explanation of the alleged contravention. Did the driver not purchase appropriate parking time or did the car remain in the car park for longer than permitted?

The postal parking charge notice fails to clarify the issue and so it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.



2. GRACE PERIODS - PART 13 OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
The Operator is in breach of part 13 of the BPA Code of Practice:
‘13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go’. ‘13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action’.

3. ANPR REQUIREMENTS- PART 21 OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR). I need POPLA to consider whether the Operator has shown documented evidence of contemporaneous manual checks of the cameras, clocks and related machinery in that particular car park. These maintenance checks are a requirement of section 21 of the Code.


4.CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
Parking Eye have also not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

Parking Eye must provide documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists. In POPLA case reference 1771073004 POPLA ruled that a witness statement was not valid. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement regarding contract documents between the operator and the landowner the alleged contract is a document which the operator could produce (if it exists). If the operator does not produce the actual contract but tries to rely on a witness statement then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid). Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant Parking Eye the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor.


5. UNCLEAR & NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE FORMING NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVERS
I believe the signs and any core parking terms Parking Eye are relying upon were unclear in all respects. This Operator needs to show POPLA their evidence and signage map/photos specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance.
There are no low-positioned, clear signs on entry to this car park which would have communicated the terms & conditions of parking there to a seated driver in moving traffic. This is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B which sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including ''The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead''.

I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park and any consequences for breach, as was found in a comparable camera-reliant car park in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.

Parking Eye has a duty to make the terms so clear that they cannot be missed. To fail in this respect means that the elements of a contract have not been met. To suggest a breach of contract, Parking Eye also needs to show that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms. No driver would knowingly accept these terms to pay this charge. The truth is that the driver did not see, understand nor accept the alleged terms. Parking Eye may claim that generic signage is displayed around the car park but this does not meet the BPA Code of Practice rules nor the requirements for consideration when forming an alleged contract.

Parking Eye needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

In Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB177 Lord Denning MR at 182 dealt with the question whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in but was obvious when paying for parking at the end, and where the plaintiff had parked often before. He said:
“He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.”

So in addition, because the signs fail to properly inform drivers of the full terms & conditions in a very prominent place at a low enough height at the entrance, the elements of a contract have not been met. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

Parking Eye does not provide signage of sufficient written text size or at a suitable height to be read from the vehicle at the entrance or at any location on the premises. I suggest Parking Eye need clear signs and means for a driver to read the full terms and to make payment with a machine at the entrance to the car park if they wish to try to establish a contract requiring payment in exchange for a parking space here.


6. NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Parking Eye are on record from a letter to a third party which is in the public domain, as having stated in 2013 that all their charges are based on 'breach of contract'. In addition, I understand that Parking Eye have told the DVLA that they have had 'reasonable cause' to continuously obtain data by a permanent EDI link due to issuing tickets for 'breach of contract'.

So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Operators cannot lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs such as staff, signs, cameras, uniforms etc in any 'loss' claimed. 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.

It is not clear whether Parking Eye are suggesting that the driver did not purchase appropriate parking time or that the car remained in the car park for longer than permitted, but in either case any 'loss' could only be the amount of the payment due for 22 minutes parking, which would be a nominal amount, not the fixed standard charge on all their tickets at this car park. No matter what the contravention alleged I believe the ticket amount is always the same on this site which calls into question the basis for the charge.

In Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.


7. UNFAIR TERMS AND AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY
I feel this charge is punitive and unfair, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. Furthermore, I believe Parking Eye is in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Schedule 2(1)(e) states: ‘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’.


Also, Regulation 5 states:
(1) ‘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.
(2) 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.’

Private parking tickets unrelated to any genuine loss are unenforceable penalties. Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

And from the Office of Fair Trading, Guidance re Unfair Contract Terms:
''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''



CONCLUSION

In considering the evidence in my appeal, I believe POPLA should order that this unjustified charge is cancelled.


Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

I like that version, get it sent off I reckon!

spacey2012

As POPLA is run by a london Council, have you thought of introducing the VCA standard not met as ANPR evidence is used in the process.
Counci's must only use ANPR evidence gathered by camera data systems approved directly by the vehicle certification agency.
This companies system is at best "DIY" do Popla accept it meets evidential standards for private parking notices if it would not for civil parking offences.
It is only one line in the long line so why not put it in, they pick upon it and that is another nail in the coffin for them.

References for explanation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22993060
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8586017.stm