We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA draft, help needed please.
haznbaz
Posts: 15 Forumite
A copy of what I have so far. I must admit mostly copied from a thread I found that seemed very well presented. I am a bit dubious about the signage part, seems a bit lame, dont know if I should include this or not. Also if there is anything I have missed
POPLA verification code
Vehicle Reg
PPC
PCN Ref
Alleged Contravention date and time
Date of NTK
I as the registered keeper of the above vehicle wish to appeal the parking charge notice on the following grounds:
1. Original appeal to CP Plus not properly or carefully considered
2. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Signage
4. No authority to levy charges
5. Unlawful penalty charge
1. My appeal that was sent to CP Plus on the 09th October 2013 after the Notice to keeper was received was obviously not properly or carefully considered. This is shown in their reply when they state "Thank you for your letter dated 13th June 2013 which we received on 27th June 2013". This goes to show that CP Plus have used a template rejection letter without addressing the points that I raised. This is a clear breach of the BPA code of practice which states that all appeals must be fairly considered.
2. The demand for payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unforceable penalty. The BPA code of practice states:
19.5 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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.
I require CP Plus to provide a detailed breakdown of how the charge was calculated. I am aware from previous cases that the company may not include day to day costs of running the business in this charge such as uniforms, wages, erecting and maintenance of signs etc as these costs would be incurred regardless.
3. The signs at the hospital site make no mention of the fact that the ticket machines issue staff tickets which is the reason why the PCN was given in the first instance. Signs are also obscurred by the ticket machines themselves (see enclosed photographs).
4. A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowners behalf and enforce for a breach of contract. CP Plus must provide evidence to demonstrate it is the landowner or a contract to show that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that entitles CP Plus to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices. I ask CP Plus to provide a copy of this contract to POPLA as proof.
5. Since there was no demonstrable loss or damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only be seen as an attempt to extort an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), Ob Services v Thurlow (review Feb 2011) and Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court Dec 2011). The operator could state the request as an invoice or request for monies yet chooses to use the wording "Charge Notice" in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine such as those issued by the Police or a traffic warden.
In the view of the above points I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
Yours etc
POPLA verification code
Vehicle Reg
PPC
PCN Ref
Alleged Contravention date and time
Date of NTK
I as the registered keeper of the above vehicle wish to appeal the parking charge notice on the following grounds:
1. Original appeal to CP Plus not properly or carefully considered
2. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Signage
4. No authority to levy charges
5. Unlawful penalty charge
1. My appeal that was sent to CP Plus on the 09th October 2013 after the Notice to keeper was received was obviously not properly or carefully considered. This is shown in their reply when they state "Thank you for your letter dated 13th June 2013 which we received on 27th June 2013". This goes to show that CP Plus have used a template rejection letter without addressing the points that I raised. This is a clear breach of the BPA code of practice which states that all appeals must be fairly considered.
2. The demand for payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unforceable penalty. The BPA code of practice states:
19.5 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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.
I require CP Plus to provide a detailed breakdown of how the charge was calculated. I am aware from previous cases that the company may not include day to day costs of running the business in this charge such as uniforms, wages, erecting and maintenance of signs etc as these costs would be incurred regardless.
3. The signs at the hospital site make no mention of the fact that the ticket machines issue staff tickets which is the reason why the PCN was given in the first instance. Signs are also obscurred by the ticket machines themselves (see enclosed photographs).
4. A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowners behalf and enforce for a breach of contract. CP Plus must provide evidence to demonstrate it is the landowner or a contract to show that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that entitles CP Plus to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices. I ask CP Plus to provide a copy of this contract to POPLA as proof.
5. Since there was no demonstrable loss or damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only be seen as an attempt to extort an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), Ob Services v Thurlow (review Feb 2011) and Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court Dec 2011). The operator could state the request as an invoice or request for monies yet chooses to use the wording "Charge Notice" in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine such as those issued by the Police or a traffic warden.
In the view of the above points I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
Yours etc
0
Comments
-
Obviously you have been doing some reading on here ! Well done.
I would always add in the Genuine pre-estimate of loss point that such costs as wages, signage, uniforms, office costs etc can not be included as there are operating costs that would have been incurred whether or not you had parked in the car park or not and were not increased as a result of you being there.
Won't hurt, might help.0 -
Thank you for your advice Guys Dad
I shall add that part to my appeal. Do you think the part about the signage is relevant or should I take it out or do you think it wont hurt to leave it in? 0 -
As the supermarket ad says "Every little helps" so keep it in.0
-
Here's a few very well written POPLA appeals from the past week or so if you need any inspiration:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4799843
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4800038
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4801480This is my *anonymous* account on MSE Forums - I post under a different username normally.0 -
Have edited original post to included part about running costs etc.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards