H0riz0n Parking ticket, what's next?

tidegu

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Don't ignore a PPC. State again that 'Your own photos show the permit in the windscreen clearly visible on the dashboard and after 5 months why in the World would you expect me to have kept that temporary permit? I ask again, kindly cancel the PCN, or give me a POPLA code so this can be properly resolved. Don't insult me with a silly reduced charge 'offer' because I have incurred expenses myself in replying to this unjustified PCN. I suggest we call it quits and you cancel it if you refuse to provide me with a POPLA code. If you do neither, and attempt to pursue any sum, you will be reported to Trading Standards, the BPA, the DVLA and your client at that car park. '

Wow!! You always help, CM, and this time you made me :rotfl:

Sorry for not being native English speaker, and hard to understand the English humour or sense, if any, are you suggesting me to send exactly the harsh, if they are, words to them? Let me know and I will do whatever you suggest :T
:beer:

bod1467

C-M is being serious. You need to be very firm with these scum.

tidegu

bod1467 wrote: »

C-M is being serious. You need to be very firm with these scum.

Thanks bod1467 & CM. I'll do it and let you know their further responses

tidegu

CM, they stupidly rejected the appeal and POPLA provided... I'm now reading again the POPLA thread to get some points... wow... there are too many posts to read! Any quick suggestion or templates so that I can get a easy start?

BTW, they send me the rejection in Email around noon time, but the POPLA code was issued one day earlier, is that normal or I'd better to send a complaint?

bod1467

That's OK in the grand scheme of things - you've still got 27 days in which to file your appeal.

Check again the NEWBIES thread to ...

1) Find the Parking Cowboy's POPLA code checker (to make sure your code is valid)

2) Find a whole section on POPLA with links to example appeals. Draft your own appeal and post it here for comment.

tidegu

bod1467 wrote: »

That's OK in the grand scheme of things - you've still got 27 days in which to file your appeal.

Check again the NEWBIES thread to ...

1) Find the Parking Cowboy's POPLA code checker (to make sure your code is valid)

2) Find a whole section on POPLA with links to example appeals. Draft your own appeal and post it here for comment.

I did use the checker that how I knew it was 1 day earlier

I'm trying to do it now, and will post it for sure Should I stick on this thread or better post a new one? Not sure about this forum's rules if you will prefer pre-POPLA / POPLA separate

bod1467

This thread please.

tidegu

After reading loads of threads, I drafted my POPLA appeal below.

Sorry again for not being a native speaker, and hope you can help me to check it, along with proof reading I underscored the part mostly written by myself, and make it red those written by myself

Dear POPLA Assessor,
Re: H0rizon P4rking Ltd PCN xxxxx, POPLA reference number: xxxxx

POPLA Reference Number: xxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number: xxxxx
Private Parking Company (PPC): xxxxx
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Ref: xxxxx
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: xxxxx

I am the registered keeper (the Keeper) of the above vehicle with registration number xxxxx (the Vehicle), and I wish to appeal the above PCN from xxxxx (the Operator). 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 Operator’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) has not complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 to establish the Keeper Liability.

2. There were no contravention of terms.

3. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

5. The signage was not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) so there was no valid contract formed between the Operator and the driver.

Here are the detailed appeal points:

1. The Operator’s NtK have not complied with the requirement of the PoFA 2012 to establish the Keeper Liability:

The Operator failed to mention PoFA 2012 in any signage, nor in the NtK (is that mandatory?). Furthermore, from the Operator’s NtK dated xxxxx, it is identified the initial PCN was issued on xxxxx. The Keeper asserts that this surpasses the 56 days required to inform the keeper (day 147 to be precise). Therefore as the Keeper I accept no liability for this ticket.

2. There were no contravention of terms:

The Operator’s own photos show the required parking permit in the windscreen clearly visible on the dashboard, and the Vehicle was parked correctly in a normal bay, so there was no contravention of terms.

3. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:

The wording on the Operator’s signage 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.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the Operator 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.

There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. At the time of the alleged contravention there had plenty empty parking bays available. Also the land is owned by the university, any breach at that time will cause no loss of revenue except the parking revenue. The university offers daily parking permit via its online system for the daily rate of £1.xx. This fact implies the loss of parking revenue must no more than £1.xx, which is far less than the demanded charge of £70 on the NtK. (Do I have, or better, or better not to break down my estimate of loss? Will these looks like a strong point or an amateur appeal?)

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.

4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers:

The Operator do not own the land mentioned in their NtK and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper.

5. The signage was not compliant with the BPA CoP so there was no valid contract formed between the Operator and the driver:

I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA CoP Section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) the Operator has no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform the Operator to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER

Well, I actually only intended to appeal against point 1, and make it really short and clear, thinking it would be fair enough, but not sure why everyone tries to list very comprehensive points and I have almost no idea which are the points I have to add. Therefore I added those and please let me know if I should add more or remove some

Coupon-mad

(Do I have, or better, or better not to break down my estimate of loss? Will these looks like a strong point or an amateur appeal?)

That part you stated about £1.xx looks fine and you don't need to break it down. It does not look amateur!

The danger of relying on just one appeal point would be, what if POPLA made a mistake or the PPC had some sort of proof that the keeper was also the driver (e.g. a photo of the driver and corroboration from the residential agents that the driver was Mr xxxxx?)! Unlikely - but that's why we like lots of appeal points - you only need ONE to win!

So stick with the longer version, with these additions in green:



Dear POPLA Assessor,
Re: H0rizon P4rking Ltd PCN xxxxx, POPLA reference number: xxxxx

POPLA Reference Number: xxxxx
Vehicle Registration Number: xxxxx
Private Parking Company (PPC): xxxxx
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Ref: xxxxx
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: xxxxx

I am the registered keeper (the Keeper) of the above vehicle with registration number xxxxx (the Vehicle), and I wish to appeal the above PCN from xxxxx (the Operator). 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 Operator’s Notice to Keeper (NtK) has not complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 to establish the Keeper Liability.

2. There was no contravention of terms.

3. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

5. The signage was not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) so there was no valid contract formed between the Operator and the driver.

Here are the detailed appeal points:

1. The Operator’s NtK does not comply with the requirements of the POFA 2012 to establish the Keeper Liability:

The Operator failed to mention the statutory wording from Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 in the NTK. Furthermore, from the Operator’s NtK dated xxxxx, it is identified the initial PCN was issued on xxxxx. The Keeper asserts that this surpasses the 56 days required to inform the keeper (day 147 to be precise). Therefore as the Keeper I accept no liability for this ticket.

2. There was no contravention of terms:

The Operator’s own photos show the required parking permit in the windscreen clearly visible on the dashboard, and the Vehicle was parked correctly in a normal bay, so there was no contravention of terms.

3. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:

The wording on the Operator’s signage 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.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the Operator 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.

There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. At the time of the alleged contravention, the driver asserts that there were plenty of empty parking bays available. Also the land is owned by the university, any breach at that time will cause no loss of revenue except the parking revenue. The university offers daily parking permit via its online system for the daily rate of £1.xx. This fact implies the loss of parking revenue must no more than £1.xx, which is far less than the demanded charge of £70 on the NtK.

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.

4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers:

The Operator does not own the land mentioned in their NtK and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I assert that there is no contract with the landowner that assigns such rights specifically to this Operator. This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to H0rizon. A witness statement will not suffice as strict proof of this, nor will a site agreement with another non-landowning agent (such as a managing agent) since this shows no evidence of landowner authority nor any evidence of allegedly authorised 'charges', restrictions, revenue sharing, payments made/received between the parties or other terms.

5. The signage was not compliant with the BPA CoP so there was no valid contract formed between the Operator and the driver:

I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA CoP Section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) the Operator has no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. In addition, the elements of a contract are not evident because there was no consideration flowing between the driver and H0rizon, and no acceptance to pay any charge under circumstances where a permit was indeed displayed.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform the Operator to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER

tidegu

CM, thanks a lot! You are always superb!

How likely do you think if I will win? Is these points strong enough?

BTW, you say I only need one point to win, will other points, if they are invalid, invalidate the appeal or lead the appeal fail?