POPLA Appeal

TracoPower

Hi MSE peeps

OK, so I'm new to the forum after meeting a gentleman in a car park where we were both photographing the parking signs, coincidently we were both done in the same car park in Blackpool home and bargain. A few awkward moments later, he was telling me about you helpful people on MSE.

So, here's my story.
We went to see the fireworks one friday evening in Blackpool and spotted the sign for "Car park at rear" leading to a dimly lit car park, which we later discovered had no out-of-hours parking. Lots of other cars were parked / parking so we thought we were ok for an hour. We did not pay any real attention to the signs, as we had a couple of excited children and buggies to contend with.

Seven days later we were issued with a PCN for £85 from PE.
The letter does not have any obvious errors, so I wrote the soft appear stating:

1. No Contract
2. Inadequate signage
3. GPEOL

Just had the reply back today, appeal refused, surprisingly, though it does list a lot of court cases that they have won, and a lot of reference to losses from people who have followed advice from online forums... very interesting if anyone fancies a scan?

So time to take some advice for my POPLA appeal.

Seems the appeal route is:
Genuine pre-estimate of losses
Lack of proprietary interest in the land
Exposure of the PPC/Landowner contract to examine their authority
Signage
Punitive charge, therefore a penalty

So... Here is my draft appeal letter to POPLA, please advise if this is suitable...


Dear POPLA
Address

My Deatils
PCN No.
Issued.
Reg.
Todays Date

I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.

1) The driver entered the car park at 20:15 in the evening. The car parking notices are poorly lit and the notice at the entrace to the car park does not comply with BPA requlations. ( I have photo's)

2) The maximum free stay stated on the PCN is a period is 0 hours 0 minutes, which does not allow any driver sufficient grace period to exit the car park.

3) The Signage does not comply with BPA requlations specifically regarding the data policy regarding ANPR technology used in this car park.(see photo)

4) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. The £85 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the car park is free to use.
In the appeal Parking Eye did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £85 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £85. 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 would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

5) Proprietary Interest
The driver does not believe that Parking Eye has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking eye's 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 driver 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 Parking eye. The driver expects Parking Eye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

It feels a bit copy/paste, but I hope the relevent winning points are clear!

Do people find that sharp/short bullet point apppeals fare better than the long-winded jobbies?


Thanks all

Coupon-mad

I think that short bullet point effort is a shining example of a concise but good POPLA appeal. Well done you. I can't write concisely like that!

:T

The only bits I might suggest could be tweaked in a minor way are:

At the start: ''I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.'' could be clearer that you are the registered keeper (not the driver as such), so:

''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.''



And this bit, stay in 'registered keeper mode' throughout:

''The driver does not believe'' = ''As the registered keeper, I do not believe''

and

''The registered keeper [STRIKE]driver[/STRIKE] 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 parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. 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 assume PE wrote within 14 days of the incident, so that their NTK was in time?

Umkomaas

Why not throw another appeal point into the mix that I've started thinking might give the PPC something further to prove or (more interestingly) provide an explanation as to why not.

The payment of business rates for the specific land where this car park is situated as they are running a business from which income and profit is derived.

Otherwise great 'little' appeal. I like and applaud the minimalist, yet penetrating approach, spot on!

TaikoTaiko

Good luck tracopower with your appeal.

Thankyou for replying in my thread. I saw you that day in the car park came over and said hello.

Pinkminx

Hi tracopower and TaikoTaiko

I have also been sent a letter as a result of parking at this location.

I was encouraged by the fact that it wasn't just me being daft! I have taken the same points raised and have sent my soft appeal off today but would be interested to see what results you both get.

fingers crossed!

TracoPower

Hi TaikoTaiko and Pinkminx

I have received my decision from POPLA today
My appeal has been allowed, so the short bullet point route appears ok, as far as POPLA are concerned.

Of all the reasons I set out, the G.P.E.O.L. was the winner!
Thanks to all you lovely people at MSE

Good luck to anyone else fighting these highway robbers

TTFN

TracoPower

Redx

excellent , please copy and paste the decision up, but remove all personal info etc, leaving the decision and points they made, this can then be added to the successful POPLA appeals sticky thread at the top of the forum

thank you

and well done

Coupon-mad

TracoPower wrote: »

Hi TaikoTaiko and Pinkminx

I have received my decision from POPLA today
My appeal has been allowed, so the short bullet point route appears ok, as far as POPLA are concerned.

Of all the reasons I set out, the G.P.E.O.L. was the winner!
Thanks to all you lovely people at MSE

Good luck to anyone else fighting these highway robbers

TTFN

TracoPower

Please can you show us the decision and Assessor's name?

4consumerrights

Well done TracoPower - a very nice concise appeal - KIFL would approve!

As coupon says though - we would appreciate the decision and assessor if you wouldn't mind either on this thread or on the POPLA sticky thread.

(is this the 99th losss now for Parking Eye?)