NW Limited PCN

Stroma

this will help you
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Hard worker, thats irrelevent

As i said forget signs, forget anything to with the car park, you dont need it

HARD_WORKER_1234

Yes just deleted thanks. This was the confusion, i thought i needed to write a letter with a number of appeal points but started to understand more now. So would you just stick mainly with the point Genuine loss?

Redx

try to use this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 as a template or guide, seeing as that is what it actually is

just maybe alter it to suit your circumstances and any other details

no gpeol and no contract are the more important points

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

yes loss and no contract, follow what stroma has posted

So two appeal points would be fine

HARD_WORKER_1234

Thanks everyone. I will concentrate on those two points and post my next attempt later and no doubt a few more. Though needs to be done asap.

Once again Thanks

HARD_WORKER_1234

Is This any better :

"APPEAL RE: Nw Ltd CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2013, VEHICLE REG: **** ***

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
The £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none as the driver owns a permit for this car park) by Nw Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Nw Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).
The Department for Transport guidelines state, in section 16 Frequently Asked Questions that:
“Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver”
In this case, Nw Ltd has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that Nw Ltd has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case. Due the car park being a “ FREE” Facility.


2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts. Therefore I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give NW Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, NW Ltd 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. I require NW Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that NW Ltd are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
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 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.

I believe 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 Nw Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Nw Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it.

Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Nw Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Nw Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty or a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this were the case, the driver would be liable to damages. Given that no 'damage' was done to the car park and furthermore that the car park was not full when the driver parked or when the driver left, there was in fact no loss at all.
The £100 charge (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) Nw Ltd are imposing is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

This concludes my appeal and once all is considered i feel any charges should be cancelled.

4consumerrights

Hardworker - The company name is PCN(NW)LTD!

The wording is good enough but you started number points which then trailed off.

You would be better to do bold headings of no GPEOL and No Contract etc with paragraphs underneath.

Just re-do as outlined above and submit TODAY online.

N.B Extra wording can always be submitted afterwards anyway before the appeal is heard.

I still don't know if your code will be accepted.

The BPA removed PCN(NW)LTD from their list on the 4th December 2013 (I did daily checks).

I know from another thread that PCN(NW) LTD were in contact with IPC/Gladstones early in November.

HARD_WORKER_1234

Changed the headings and company name and will send appeal online.

Lastly before I send do i tick Exceed the appropriate amount or not liable or both????

Thanks

Umkomaas

HARD_WORKER_1234 wrote: »

Changed the headings and company name and will send appeal online.

Lastly before I send do i tick Exceed the appropriate amount or not liable or both????

Thanks

Tick three of the four (obviously not the 'stolen car' one), most people do.