PCN help please!

Coupon-mad

Why would you say who was driving now, after previously appealing as the keeper only? And sorry but, why use a version alleging Excel 'failed to do a manual review of tickets to match the payment made' (which is only suitable of course, if a person HAD paid and displayed and made a typo with their car reg?).

I am guessing you've simply copied an Excel one I wrote a while back without changing it, which is a bit odd when it makes no sense and ''outs'' the driver! TBH you'd be better using another one which wasn't written for Excel but which relates to any ANPR ticket like this one. Then of course, just edit Excel into it throughout.

'How to win at POPLA' is a link in the 'Newbies read this first' sticky thread, near the top. DO NOT name the driver nor imply who was driving; find another example and please, please, read it and amend it to suit your case otherwise the appeal makes no sense at all and is an obvious template - surely it's almost easier to write your own letter than use one that isn't relevant and drops the driver in it?

The only reason that other Excel POPLA appeal said who was driving, was because the silly OP had already admitted it in the first appeal.

Redx

I wasnt sure why you have also ignored the more favoured template by guys-dad here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

after all, you have had plenty of time to sort one out whilst waiting for the inevitable rejection letter from the PPC

as above, pointless admitting to being the driver, doesnt help at all and can make matters worse for you

ie:- the typical "no comment" interview, as opposed to "anything you say can and will be used against you" !!

good luck and post your next draft for checking as you only get one chance at this

Ozzyno5

Thanks guys, well pointed out, I am ashamed of myself now! :-s

Will use that suggested template, thanks Redx.

Ozzyno5

another go!!

Will fill in the case details below before I send on to POPLA:



"APPEAL RE: XXXX 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. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

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.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.)

2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

This concludes my appeal.

Signed:

Dated:

bod1467

Remove item 1 - it doesn't add anything, and I doubt you have any information to support your assertion - and renumber your points accordingly.

Whilst there would only be 3 appeal points, you'll have the 2 silver bullets.

Redx

also make sure you have added everything in posts #4 and #6, as one or two bits seem to be missing , may just help although the main ones are there already in your appeal

Coupon-mad

bod1467 wrote: »

Remove item 1 - it doesn't add anything, and I doubt you have any information to support your assertion - and renumber your points accordingly.

Whilst there would only be 3 appeal points, you'll have the 2 silver bullets.

Totally agree - where has this Planning Consent thing sprung up from, it's not even relevant in most car parks and even where it might be the point would only be useful is a poster had some dirt to show POPLA (such as planning Consent which said the parking period was for longer or that people could shop off-site).

I don't think I have an example showing 'Planning Consent' as a term, in the How to win at POPLA examples? Where's this version from?

It doesn't even have a paragraph about ANPR. The examples in the link in the ''Newbies'' thread do, in most cases.

Guys_Dad

Whether it has cropped up at POPLA before is beside the point. See here for example http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10616762.Car_park_operators_apply_for__retrospective__planning_permission/ or http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/163-1-500-day-8211-car-park-planning-permission/story-12041674-detail/story.html and. http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/colchester/8949250.Commuter_car_park____has_no_planning_permission___/

Just a few examples from many more.

We also have the recent example where Tesco were the main site landowners and had not given authority to a subordinate company to bring in a PPC. The PPC was expelled.

Ozzyno5

Hello all, many thanks for your assistance on this, I did a bit more researching and looking around the site last night and early this morning.
I have kept point 1 in based on some recent cases, as highlighted by Guys Dad. I have also added a point on ANPR, as pointed out by Coupon-mad.
This now gives me 6 appeal points. I will do more searching around the site and on POPLA posts today to fine tune my appeal before I send it off.
Please don't think I am being lazy by asking so many questions about my appeal, I am worried about getting this wrong as do not have a spare £100 to pay these robbing b***ards.
Again many thanks for all your help and advice!

Redx

correct. dont rush it and ensure its all in there as ideally you want it to be worded "just right" from the outset, especially this time of year when its busy and they close down etc

better to get it checked whilst you can and I believe you are actually doing the work you are being pointed at, unlike some that want it done for them

so if in doubt , always ask, when you are sure its ok, then send it in, even though the chances are 90% may be ignored by popla and they may just choose the no gpeol section for a quick outcome