UKPC Parking Charge for not parking within the marked bay

Jonah76

bod1467 wrote: »

Still make sure you check that POPLA code though - UKPC might have been sneaky and given you a code dated from the original rejection and not dated from your reminder.

How would I know that? The POPLA ref seems ok when I plug it into the online appeal but it is not dated so can only assume it runs from the date of the letter I received.

Jonah76

Just look at that link. Issued on day 351.

Redx

Jonah76 wrote: »

How would I know that? The POPLA ref seems ok when I plug it into the online appeal but it is not dated so can only assume it runs from the date of the letter I received.

tells you in the sticky thread how to check the code for its actual date using the guide on pranksters website

so if you havent yet read the sticky thread NEWBIES-READ THIS FIRST please do so as there is a wealth of info within it

Redx

Jonah76 wrote: »

Just look at that link. Issued on day 351.

so the date of the letter should be day 351 or thereabouts

so we would assume that you have 28 days from day 351 to ensure your appeal gets to popla

given you were offered a popla appeal letter in the first page of this thread by somebody who had the same troubles as you (post #4) , I would hope you contacted them for it

also see the standard template by guys-dad you can adjust to your own circumstances https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 , never mind the popla guides in the NEWBIES thread too

you really need to get a shift on and be pro-active now, despite the holidays, ensuring you submit the appeal on line even if you also send it by post

bod1467

351 suggests 16th December, so you have until Monday 13th January 2014 to file your appeal.

Jonah76

Yarp - on it & hope to post a draft tonight.

Jonah76

Hey Guys - Happy new Year :beer:

Here is my draft for you guys to have a look at. Please let me know what you think so I can get it sent online.

"APPEAL RE: PPC Name CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2013, VEHICLE REG: **** ***

I was the driver of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and would ask that all grounds detailed below are considered:

1. The parking company or their client have not proved 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 here 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

Planning consent is required for car parks and these have conditions that grant certain permissions because the car park provides a service to the community. To charge motorists for an alleged breach of parking terms and conditions, planning consent is required. 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.

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.

To date the parking company has refused to provide this information on the grounds of confidentiality.

POPLA’s ‘coaching’ of the parking companies sought to make them aware that by calling the charges an ‘agreed fee’ for parking would bring this within the definition of an agreed contract accepted by the driver at the time of parking. In fact, the use of the car park was by agreement with the landowner at the time of entry to it. They made it available for use in connection with the use of the surrounding facilities as a free facility.

The charges by the parking company do not represent any landowner loss and are not in consideration of a loss for non payment for parking in line with the landowners own offer to park in this facility.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication:

“Membership of the Approved Operator Scheme dies require the parking company to have clear authorization for the landowner, it if is not itself the landowner, as to its role I relation to the parking control and enforcement. This is set out in the BPA Code of Practice. However, as with any issue, if the point is specifically raised by an appellant in an appeal, then the operator should address it by producing such evidence as it believes refutes a submission that it has no authority.”

2. 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 particularly since the signage itself does not appear to be illuminated thereby at night the signs cannot be seen clearly let alone any details contained on it. 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 enter in all light conditions. 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.

The charges demanded by the parking company did not form any part of the considerations of parking at the time of entry to the car park and were invoked only for the breach of an arbitrary condition for the use of the car park some time after arrival. To that end, if, as POPLA suggested in the workshops ran for the parking companies, this solidified as a contract then that contract has not sufficient depth to it to escape the provisions of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts. Notwithstanding the failure of third party liability for a contract that was neither accepted or negotiated by the keeper.

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 especially considering that parking is free.

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

3. 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 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.

To date the parking company have refused to provide this information.

This concludes my appeal.


Cheers

Hot_Bring

Make point 4 your first point and actually add some detail for it. That alone will win it for you.

Coupon-mad

You seem to have 2 x point number 2!

'2. No valid contract with landowner'

'2. The signage at the car park was not...'

I agree with Hot Bring, make 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' your first or second point because that one will win it for you. May as well make it easy for the POPLA Assessor!

Here's a UKPC one which was linked in the 'How to win at POPLA' linky in the ''NEWBIES read this first!'' sticky thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63823022#Comment_63823022

Feel free to copy the wording if you like, and you can even leave in the stuff about UKPC's website wording - as they've only very recently changed it and you could easily have looked at it in November. Proves it is 'revenue' for them.

Jonah76

Awesome cheers guys!