yup its peel centre again

Coupon-mad

Yep you just need to read the 'How to win at POPLA' link on the 'Newbies read this first!' thread and do show us your draft first if you want us to check it's a winner.

noney82

Thank you, but I can't see a code only a "verification code" and "operator herby certifies that rejection notice and this firm sent to appellant on". Both are at the bottom of the POPLA form

Coupon-mad

noney82 wrote: »

Thank you, but I can't see a code only a "verification code" and "operator herby certifies that rejection notice and this firm sent to appellant on". Both are at the bottom of the POPLA form

Yep. A code.

noney82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep. A code.

Ahhhh thank you

Coupon-mad

To reiterate, now you just need to read the 'How to win at POPLA' link on the 'Newbies read this first!' thread and do show us your draft first if you want us to check it's a winner.

noney82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

To reiterate, now you just need to read the 'How to win at POPLA' link on the 'Newbies read this first!' thread and do show us your draft first if you want us to check it's a winner.

i will do thank you for your help

noney82

wow this is all mind boggling stuff, i am currently typing my appeal. i have 12 tabs open that i am flicking between using information from.

noney82

Dear POPLA Assessor

Verification code:
Vehicle registration:
PCN:
PPC: Excel Parking Services Ltd.
Alleged contravention date and time: 31/3/2013 19:07
Duration of stay: 55 mins
Date of PCN:

I am writing to appeal against recent parking charges issued to me by Excel Parking Services Ltd for allegedly parking without displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket. My appeal to the PPC was rejected in a letter dated 6th December 2013. I am appealing against the charges on the following grounds:

1. Signage
2. Lack of contract
3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. length of time taken
5. use of ANPR

1. Signage

On the day in question, The driver was taking their family to KFC, on entering the restaurant the driver asked a member of staff about parking and was told that they have 2 bays at the side of the building nothing was mentioned about a time limit or being required to purchase a ticket. the spaces are clearly defined as being separate from the rest of the car park spaces, again no mention of having to purchase a ticket. The signs here allude to a maximum stay of 15 mins, but do not state the terms & conditions nor mention parking charges/breach of contract risk. And the entrance signs at the Peel Centre are not relevant to any contract at those KFC spaces either, because that area is not pay and display and simply is not covered by the t&cs for the rest of the car park. I am sure that POPLA and the BPA Ltd will agree that, where there is a specific 'non-Pay and Display area' for a takeaway or drive-thru within a P&D car park, then the parking company must clearly sign each separate area with full t&cs otherwise there simply is no enforceable contract created at all around the takeaway. A visitor cannot be left to guess as to any repercussions caused if delays in the KFC cause the visitors' car to remain in the specifically-free car park spaces for longer than the ridiculously short time period 'allowed'. And with young children it is near impossible to enter a car park, park up, remove children from the car,enter KFC, order food, wait for food, find a seat, and get 3 young children to wolf their food down all in side 15 minutes. There were no signs indicating that KFC customers are liable for payment charges from the point of entry into the main Peel carpark, which is the only entrance available to get to the KFC. There were also no signs indicating that ANPR technology would be used to capture this entry and applied to KFC customers as soon as they entered to make their way to the KFC, parked their cars in the allocated bays, order their food, wait for it to arrive and then get back into their cars to drive out of the main carpark and be captured by the cameras again. The use of ANPR technology in this manner amounts to unfair entrapment.

In addition, on the day(easter sunday) and time of the parking event, apart from the KFC, no other stores in the vicinity were open and the main carpark itself was quiet and unoccupied. Until recently parking at this location was free in the evenings and bank holidays, there was no clear indication that parking charges were in force from the point of entry into the main carpark, even if drivers were not intending to use the main carpark and heading straight for the KFC. Excel Parking Services has not provided proof that my car was parked in the main carpark and not within the KFC bays.

Excel Parking Services claims that their ‘signs are highly prominent and meet the requirements set by the British Parking Association guidelines’. I dispute this claim. BPA Code of Practice, item 18.5 cites that ‘If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.’ I maintain that at that time of night, and in darkness, the signs are barely noticeable and the print impossible to read. And in any case, nothing in print or the terms and conditions applies to customers using the allocated bays at the KFC, and whether the use of those bays constituted part of the unspecified ‘grace period’.

2. Lack of contract

To this degree, the driver cannot be said to have breached any contract with Excel Parking Services if there was no intention to park in the main carpark supposedly managed by Excel Parking Services. There cannot be an enforceable contract if there is a non-Pay-&-Display area within a Pay-&-Display carpark where differing terms and conditions apply, and where the parking company has not erected signs with full terms and conditions distinguishing the two separate areas. In my case, the alleged contravention of ‘parking without a ticket/permit’ simply did not occur.

The motorist is only bound by any contract terms that he/she has seen before the picture is taken - terms cannot be added after the contract is made - thus any signs in the car park itself are superfluous.
The contract thus formed is one sided. Under the UTTC both sides must have an equal view of the contract no i.e no hidden terms - but only excel has access to the time the photo was taken and to the clock which is timing the motorist's stay. The motorist may not be aware that his picture has been taken - no lights flash, no bells ring etc. and never has access to the timings until he receives the PCN
If the contract is made when the motorist leaves the car - having parked and seen the signs in the car park - the time as per the ANPR is inaccurate since the motorist may have taken 10 minutes or more to find a space!! Similarly on leaving the car park a traffic jam could mean that the ANPR camera is also wrong.

According to the BPA Code of Practice, item 7.1, If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary

In their correspondence with me, Excel Parking Services has not provided any evidence that they have the authority to issue these charges. I request that POPLA request a signed copy of the contract with the landowner conferring upon the company the right to pursue these supposed ‘penalties’ through the courts. A certified copy of the said contract should be produced, fulfilling all the terms set out in the BPA Code of Practice item 7.2, and not simply a document claiming such a contract or agreement exists.

3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

In their letter Excel assert that the PCN is a reasonable charge for liquidated damages following a breach of the parking contract and they contend that it is not 'unreasonable, excessive or punitive' and therefore cannot be considered a 'penalty'.
In the BPA Code of Practice, items 19.5 and 19.6 state that ‘If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer’ and ‘that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.’
Considering the stores were mostly closed at the time in question and there were hardly any cars in the carpark, I maintain that the charge of £100 is excessive and punitive and bears no reflection on the loss that may have been incurred by the landowner or the parking company, if at all. I request that POPLA seeks from Excel Parking Services to provide a detailed breakdown as to how the amount of £100 was arrived at. Costs of running the business may not be included in the pre-estimate of loss.

4.length of time taken

The parking event took place on the 31//3/2013, yet i didn't receive any correspondence until 24/10/2013. On the letter i received following my initial appeal to excel they clearly state they acknowlage that there was a delay in issuing the driver with notification of the PCN through the post. They say the PCN was issued to the driver on the 23rd October 2013, yet it is dated the 24th October on the received PCN.

They claim they received a call from the keeper on the 24th may 2013 informing them the noticed was passed to the driver, they then say that on the 1st June 2013 the keeper formally confirmed the drivers details. I would like to state that Excel believes wrong and is making a huge assumption in order to avoid dealing with a legitimate appeal, The driver was not aware of it.

5.Use of ANPR

Time, date and location data

The enforcement equipment must maintain a system clock that is regularly synchronised to a nationally recognised standard clock. The system clock must, at all times, be within 10 seconds of coordinated universal time (UTC) as disseminated in the United Kingdom by the National Physical Laboratory using the MSF transmitter. The system clock must be synchronised with a suitable standard clock aminimum of once in any 14-day period. The specified synchronisation period isbased on the longest time that the MSF transmission is likely to be unavailable for maintenance etc. Authorities are advised to be mindful of this (and the impact of similar factors on other independent national clocks, where used) when setting their synchronisation schedule; more frequent checks might be appropriate. Each image within a context sequence should contain embedded data consisting of time, date, a unique frame identifier, and, where not in a fixed location, the enforcement location, and must be fit for purpose.

4. Collection Of data By remote systems

a. Systems using the internet protocol are by their very nature Asynchronous

b. To use the time data derived from a client and server, it must be shown that the two are synchronised.

i. A camera and monitoring software are wrongly considered to be synchronous, they are in fact asynchronous. The time stamp on data collected by a server , the application, is derived locally to the application. A camera may also have a local clock but it is not the clock of the server nor the application.

ii. To use the images and time stamps produced by a server that is remote to the camera requires that the system has its own upper layer timing. If the system at any point uses connectivity provided by a third party, for instance ADSL data connections, then upper layer timing is required and some form of traffic flow security. An alarm and log would have to be implemented to warn of loss of Sync. If Parking Eye cannot show that the system is implemented with timing and sync loss logs then any images developed by the system cannot be trusted. And any use of the data collected as evidence of fact is wrong.

On the above grounds, I respectfully request that these charges be cancelled and the appeal allowed.

Yours,



I hope this is ok, im not so sure about sections 4 and 5.
Is the heading for section 4 ok?
Is section 5 worked ok?

i have researched a lot of different cases and taken advice from them and tried to word it as best my self in most cases, which i hope is ok and allowed.

Thank you

bod1467

Item 4 - check your dates, they are all over the place.

Are you trying to allege that the NtK was issued out of time?

noney82

bod1467 wrote: »

Item 4 - check your dates, they are all over the place.

Are you trying to allege that the NtK was issued out of time?

Well noticed thank you, from the date off the parking event till the PCN was received by the driver was 7 months. The keeper off the vehicle didn't inform the driver of the event