CEL KFC Christchurch

Coupon-mad

shrimp_0211 wrote: »

The other problem I have is I can't go back and check the signs as we were on holiday there when we received it. Do I need to or will they be farly standard across companies

There will be standard rubbish signage - and you don't have to check the signs. Just the fact you mention it in a POPLA appeal, means the burden of proof shifts to the PPC who then have to provide maps and photos & proof!

Make sure you don't just copy the version above - there are sentences which make no sense for your case (Blue Badge stuff in brackets, for example, get rid of that but do not get rid of the case law). Also obviously that example posted by Stroma was about UKPC and you must amend that too.

Glad to hear you have complained to KFC. Is there a national contact us email or number that you can have a real moan at, to get them to cancel this? Is it this one, where's the car park as it looks like a drive-thru?

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=kfc+christchurch&ll=50.743204,-1.740364&spn=0.000027,0.024784&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=kfc&hnear=Christchurch,+Dorset,+United+Kingdom&view=text&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=50.743204,-1.740364&panoid=vMxxo3IQ-NqEdEm_gNnOkg&cbp=12,88.45,,0,0.07

Stroma

I would have altered it for this situation but on my mobile which is difficult to do things. Obviously change things to suit OP , it's important to put things in your own words as it's your situation, though don't get away from the thrust of what is posted above.

shrimp_0211

Yeah it is that one there is also a car behind thanks I will hopefully have something to show you all later if the kids allow it

shrimp_0211

CONTRACTWITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TOOFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS


Civil Enforcement Ltd do not own this car park and are acting merely as agentsfor KFC. Civil Enforcement Ltd has not provided me with any evidence that it islawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforceparking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012).Civil Enforcement Ltd has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of theland in question.

I require Civil Enforcement Ltd to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous,signed and dated contract with the landowner; I say it does not specificallyenable Civil Enforcement Ltd to pursue parking charges in the courts. Thiswould not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code ofPractice.

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

CivilEnforcement Ltd are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argumentby providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences thegenuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park forthis particular 'contravention'.

Civil Enforcement Ltd has not shown a breakdown of their alleged 'loss' - whichcannot include their operational day-to-day running costs. No claim for lossfor a 'breach of terms' can possibly be applied to a customer using the parkingspace to allow them to use restaurant thus taking up a space in the car parkand a table in the restaurant. Since the car park is free to park to thoseusing the restaurant, there can have been no loss arising from this incidentand the only elements of a contract I agreed to were between myself and therestaurant alone. This parking space cannot somehow have been offered again by anagent, Civil Enforcement Ltd.

The drivers entering this carpark unwillingly and unknowingly enter into acontract with Civil Enforcement Ltd as there is insufficient signage on theentrance of the car park as is set out in paragraph B 18.2 of the BPA Code ofPractice which states ‘Entrance signs must tell drivers that thecar park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be awareof.’ ‘The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed ofvehicles approaching the car park’.



UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since therewas 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 toimpersonate a parking ticket. This was the case in several compelling andcomparable Court decisions such Also Excel Parking Services vHetherington-Jakeman (2008) (a case where the 'Parking Charge' was found to bea penalty) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in Parking Eyev Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011). In relation to these cases thecharge by Civil Enforcement Ltd is therefore unenforceable as it is seen as apenalty not a parking charge.

Umkomaas

You've touched on the 'killer' point (pre-estimate of losses) which, as things stand at the moment, should see this off. The caveat I put here is that every PPC is losing on this point and it would be naive to believe they are not trying to do something about it. Your appeal won't be looked at much before Christmas. So GOK what will or won't work then.

To the specifics of your appeal - I think you need to make the 'signage' paragraph a formal point with a heading as per your other key points.

You have put the PPC to 'strict proof' on the contract side of things, but you need to put them to similar proof on all the other key points in your appeal ESPECIALLY the pre-estimate of losses. You need to put in the appeal that general business costs like signage erection, administration costs, camera maintenance, membership of the BPA etc are not losses. Make this point loud and clear.

HTH