POPLA appeal rejected

Essingeviken

However, did you actually appeal on the basis of "bad signage" .

I pointed out that the large signs in the car park did not contain any reference to the requirement to enter reg no. No reference was made to the signage complying with any BPA standards.

They argued that the machine signage forced you to read the instructions. This of course is complete rubbish. How can anyone be forced to read something. I argued that the fact that machine printed a ticket regardless when it could have forced you to enter some letters and numbers amounted to trickery.

Essingeviken

The company was KBT Cornwall t/as Armtrac Security Services.

The company took photos of the signs. There was a large one at the entrance but this contained no reference to the obligation to enter a registration number.

I will post an edited version of the POPLA case later as requested.

Essingeviken

4consumerrights wrote: »

Which parking company is it then? (The reason for asking is that many of the smaller companies do not do court)

Remember the POPLA decision is only binding on the parking company and you are under no obligation to pay - they need a court decision first.

I would take photographs of all the signage (were there any at entrance?.
From what you say, the signs clearly breach BPA CoP regarding signage and I would report the company to : David Metcalf, Operations Manager, British Parking Association: email:[EMAIL="david.m@britishparking.co.uk"]david.m@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL]


You should also now write a strongly worded letter to the retailer and landlowner complaining that it its disgraceful treatment of a customer who paid for more time than required to be pursued for this alleged debt when no terms were made clear therefore making the contrract unenforceable. The retailer and/or landowner have the power to order the parking company to cancel the charge - do not take no for an answer. (It helps if you still have receipts and bank statements to validate (omitting personal info and account numbers)

No idea who the landowner is. I suppose I should ask. If I were to have a counterclaim for harrasment, would that be against the parking company or the landowner_

4consumerrights

Essingeviken wrote: »

However, did you actually appeal on the basis of "bad signage" .

I pointed out that the large signs in the car park did not contain any reference to the requirement to enter reg no. No reference was made to the signage complying with any BPA standards.

They argued that the machine signage forced you to read the instructions. This of course is complete rubbish. How can anyone be forced to read something. I argued that the fact that machine printed a ticket regardless when it could have forced you to enter some letters and numbers amounted to trickery.

Sorry Essingeviken - reading your first post your POPLA appeal was not strong enough. You failed to mention that the signs breached the BPA CoP which is why they did not address this point.

Your POPLA appeal should have been along the lines that the contract was unenforceable due to the terms not being expressly displayed on notices breaching BPA CoP which is misrepresentation and entrapment, and falls under the realms of Unfair Contract Terms legislation.

You should have also challenged if the parking company has a valid contract with the landowner and is able to pursue any parking charges and meets all its legal responsibilities regarding tax, including paying business rates.

he other major and main winning point at POPLA currently is that the parking charge for the alleged "breach" does not represent any genuine pre-estimate loss to either the parking company or landowner (in your case they made extra money due to you paying for 3 hours and only staying 2). The charge therefore is considered to be punitive and an unenforceable penalty.

That is a brief synopsis of a basis for a POPLA appeal (which can also be elaborated with further points added).

Still all is not lost. Complain to the BPA as described in my previous post (enclose photos of the signage if you can) as the BPA may instruct the parking company to cancel. (and hopefully issue sanction points !)

And don't forget to complain to the retailer and landowner.:)

Essingeviken

4consumerrights wrote: »

Sorry Essingeviken - reading your first post your POPLA appeal was not strong enough. You failed to mention that the signs breached the BPA CoP which is why they did not address this point.

Your POPLA appeal should have been along the lines that the contract was unenforceable due to the terms not being expressly displayed on notices breaching BPA CoP which is misrepresentation and entrapment, and falls under the realms of Unfair Contract Terms legislation.

You should have also challenged if the parking company has a valid contract with the landowner and is able to pursue any parking charges and meets all its legal responsibilities regarding tax, including paying business rates.

he other major and main winning point at POPLA currently is that the parking charge for the alleged "breach" does not represent any genuine pre-estimate loss to either the parking company or landowner (in your case they made extra money due to you paying for 3 hours and only staying 2). The charge therefore is considered to be punitive and an unenforceable penalty.

That is a brief synopsis of a basis for a POPLA appeal (which can also be elaborated with further points added).

Still all is not lost. Complain to the BPA as described in my previous post (enclose photos of the signage if you can) as the BPA may instruct the parking company to cancel. (and hopefully issue sanction points !)

And don't forget to complain to the retailer and landowner.:)

This is very helpful. Thank you. I realise that my POPLA appeal was not as good as it could and should have been. I made the mistake of thinking that I was dealing with reasonable people. I will get a letter off to the BPA and ask for a formal response.

4consumerrights

Essingeviken wrote: »

The company was KBT Cornwall t/as Armtrac Security Services.

The company took photos of the signs. There was a large one at the entrance but this contained no reference to the obligation to enter a registration number.

I will post an edited version of the POPLA case later as requested.

Yes this company is rearing its ugly head again
For information read the following:

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Suspension-security-firm-boss/story-17636259-detail/story.html?sp=normal&1356037152485#axzz2hexSJvcg

and

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Truro-security-manager-court-53-000-fraud/story-19812338-detail/story.html#axzz2fJtBd2He

The BPA would be very interested to hear of breaches again as I suspect that this was one of the six companies suspended last year.

Essingeviken

The BPA would be very interested to hear of breaches again as I suspect that this was one of the six companies suspended last year.[/QUOTE]

I will write the letter to the BPA this evening.

Coupon-mad

Is that the car park where Armtrac use the word 'fine' or 'penalty' on the sign?

Essingeviken

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is that the car park where Armtrac use the word 'fine' or 'penalty' on the sign?

Not sure, I will check this evening. I guess it probably is not though.

Coupon-mad

Which car park? Several are notorious and if you Google them and the word 'PPC' you might find previous forum discussion with signage pictures. There is at least one with a recent sign saying 'fine' or 'penalty' which is not allowed.