Sneaky ticket

Guys_Dad

What you need to do is get the appeal off. In the absence of any changes to the latest draft, use that, but I urge any regulars to add any paragraphs to the draft today. We do not want BB to miss the chance of POPLA.

BB, I would send your appeal no later than Monday. No need to over egg the pudding.

Coupon-mad

Guys_Dad wrote: »

What you need to do is get the appeal off. In the absence of any changes to the latest draft, use that, but I urge any regulars to add any paragraphs to the draft today. We do not want BB to miss the chance of POPLA.

BB, I would send your appeal no later than Monday. No need to over egg the pudding.

I would send it as it is because that means the OP can relax and wait for POPLA to find in her favour. It already has the killer points and we know POPLA won't even look at the Equality Act. I can devise a paragraph for that if everyone thinks it's worth it but I don't think we need to drag this out any more.

Umkomaas

I have put a few finishing touches to the draft (mainly prepared by Guy's Dad - thanks) and incorporated a little bit extra, drawing from the VCS -v- Ibbotson case.

As far as I am concerned I think it's now ready for the OP to despatch to POPLA.

Last call for anyone wishing to (constructively) add anything further?

OP - when you send this off make sure you print the POPLA reference number on every page. As it's not an overly-wordy document it should easily submit via the POPLA website. However, you might also want to send by snail mail as well (with free proof of posting from your PO) to ensure POPLA do get this. Staple the sheets together, the top one being the POPLA appeal top sheet template from their website.

Make sure you change the xxxxx to the appropriate names etc (one right at the end of the appeal) and join up Scu nthorpe because if I do it on the forum the word checker thinks there's a bit of a crude word contained in it and it becomes S!!!!horpe.

Think that's it from me, thanks to everyone who contributed, and especially to Guy's Dad.

PCN No.
Issued.
POPLA Reference xxxxxxxxxx
My Address
Todays Date

Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.

1) Lack of BPA compliant signage

The driver entered the car park xxxx, at, xxxxx, on xxxxx, enquired from UKCPS parking attendant on duty where they could park and was directed to an area that had no signage restricting parking whatsoever. As Registered keeper.

I put UKCPS to strict proof to show any BPA compliant signage in the area in which the car was parked.

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

The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

In the appeal, UKCPS did not address this issue, and has not justified their charge as an appropriate, genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Further, as the parking attendant first advised the driver where to park, saw the driver heading to leave the car park (unaware that it was a Pay & Display car park), failed to inform the driver of the need to pay, which would have mitigated any loss, preferring instead to issue a parking ticket.

The well publicised case of Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) -v- Mr Ronald Ibbotson (Case Reference 1SE09849) before District Judge McIlwaine in the Scu nthorpe County Court (May 2012) should make it clear to Private Parking Companies the need to mitigate the loss in such circumstances.

JUDGE MciL WAINE: Thank you, and so if on the evidence of Mr Ibbotson, which has not been challenged, the parking attendant was there and saw Mr Ibbotson walking away, whilst it may not be his responsibility to stop him walking away, as he is a lawful authorised member of the company at the time he is there and there is a duty to mitigate the loss, can you explain to me why he did not say to Mr Ibbotson, "You can walk off, not a problem, 80 quid"?

For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the losses that UKCPS has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to the amount demanded. 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 operational costs are the normal costs of running a business and would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park or not.

I therefore put UKCPS to strict proof to provide a breakdown to POPLA of the actual losses that they claim to have suffered as a result of this alleged parking contravention.

3) Proprietary Interest

As the registered keeper, I do not believe that UKCPS has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give them any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers.

In addition, UKCPS' 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.

4) Contract with Landowner
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue BPA Code of Practice compliant parking charge notices (PCNs). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.''

I put UKCPS to strict proof that they have such a contract and that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.


5) Business Rates

As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by UKCPS, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for UKCPS, I do not believe that UKCPS has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put UKCPS to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at xxxxx car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

Guys_Dad

Good final copy . I think you can go with this and look forward to being successful.

Get it off asap and keep us in the picture. Let us know you have sent it.

zzzLazyDaisy

Umkomaas wrote: »

Make sure you change the xxxxx to the appropriate names etc (one right at the end of the appeal) and join up Scu nthorpe because if I do it on the forum the word checker thinks there's a bit of a crude word contained in it and it becomes S!!!!horpe.

Totally off topic (apologies to OP) but I would just like to say that I was raised in Scun thorpe and was in the same class at school with Ron Ibbotson.
Small world, eh?

Umkomaas

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Totally off topic (apologies to OP) but I would just like to say that I was raised in Scun thorpe and was in the same class at school with Ron Ibbotson.
Small world, eh?

Wow, small world indeed. Pity Ron didn't have you representing him. You could have gleefully handed Rachel Coates her toothbrush :rotfl:.

What's with all these Rachel's getting involved in car parking - the now infamous [Text removed by MSE Forum Team] of PE, Ms Coates of Ibbotson fame and of course the reputedly aggressive Ms Organ of Aldi.

What's in a name they say

billybumble

Hi everyone,
Thanks so much.
Intend to get this off asap. I do however have photographic stuff now too but don't really want to stick it up here (nor do I know how to) but if any of you that have replied on here PM me I would get you to have a look.

I really want to win this and it isn't about the money. It's about being cheated and the stress this has caused. It's about the gratitude to totally strangers , who despite my hormones being all over, stepped in to help and the little things that just help pull you out a mess. Like kindness and people just going that extra bit for you. It came when I needed it most.

Anyway, still rambling. To the point. I will be sending this off on Monday/Tuesday to POPLA- Do I need to state anything about the pregnancy, health disability stuff or ramble on or just as is?. If anyone wants to see the photos....who has already replied to this thread- let me know and I will do that. I've stuck them on a word document.

Coupon-mad

I don't think you need to state the health issues, even though there is an Equality Act angle here. I say send it off as we know it already has the usual killer paragraphs, and you can also send them your photos if they help to show your case.

billybumble

Thanks. When I am not thinking straight I tend to put to many eggs in the pudding so to speak. It sometimes doesn't give more information and makes it more confusing.

The photos show that there were no signs were I was told to park (I guess I need to say that) Another also that the signs are on the opposite wall and one is higher than me by a lot...I took a picture with 5 foot 3 person under it, to show how high it was. The other is lower but was not against the wall I parked.

The only one on the wall against I was parked against was low down, warped and was concealed by a car.

Hope that makes sense. I do not know how to post them up. But will get it all sent off tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

Add all of that to the appeal paragraph about 'lack of compliant signage':

The photos show that there were no signs were I was told to park. Another also that the signs are on the opposite wall and one is higher than me by a lot...I took a picture with 5 foot 3 person under it, to show how high it was. The other is lower but was not against the wall I parked.

The only one on the wall against I was parked against was low down, warped and was concealed by a car.

In fact I would also add another paragraph now you have reminded me that you 'had permission to park'. Add this at the end:


6) The driver had verbal permission from UKCPS to park from the employee, so with no signs seen, this was the only contract formed.

The UKPCS employee spoke to the driver and showed her where to park, which was an area where no signs could be seen. The employee stood in front of the driver as she got out, in between her line of vision with a distant high up sign. The driver asked if it was private land, could she park, and would she get a ticket? The employee said 'no' to all questions and specifically had directed her to park there.

This was the only possible contract between UKCPS and the driver, who parked with clear verbal permission (albeit from an employee who then placed a ticket on the windscreen unbeknown to the driver, took a photo and then apparently swiftly removed it). The UKCPS employee was still there when the driver returned and spoke to her again, so there was no possibility that the ticket could have been served properly, or removed by an unknown person, as the UKCPS employee was there all the time.

This was also a breach of the CPUTR 2008 as it was an unfair trading practice.

I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and order that this charge be cancelled.

yours faithfully,

billybumble