New generation parking

Coupon-mad

Hitchedguide wrote: »

I googled the site as suggested and have found PMG developments as being the developers don't know how to hyperlink, have a look see what you think.

Look, when you find out that Savills are the agents then stop digging. Savills can cancel this if you complain to them. You do not need the landowner, stop!

mysterywoman10

coupon-mad does anyone have a sample of a contract between a PPC and Savills you know of?

I'd be very interested to see what was in it.

Also do they benefit financially from these tickets along with the PPC?

I don't see them as being entirely blameless ...savills that is a) because they instruct the PPC's in the first place and b) because they don't always seem to be very upfront about the fact they are managing a lot of these places and even the "retailers" don't know. Which seems odd to me.

Coupon-mad

does anyone have a sample of a contract between a PPC and Savills you know of? NOPE, HAVEN'T SEEN ONE

Also do they benefit financially from these tickets along with the PPC? MAYBE BUT OFTEN NOT, THE 'SERVICE' IS SOLD AS A FREE RACKET!

I don't see them as being entirely blameless ...savills that is a) because they instruct the PPC's in the first place and b) because they don't always seem to be very upfront about the fact they are managing a lot of these places and even the "retailers" don't know.
I AGREE BUT BEAR IN MIND SOME CAR PARK DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TO HAVE 'PARKING MANAGEMENT' AS IT'S OFTEN A STATED REQUIREMENT OF PLANNING CONSENT NOWADAYS.

mysterywoman10

Thanks in the end that is the cause of it I agree and I think if people really want long term change on parking this is what we need to pursue with our Local Councils and MP's.

Did you see my post on PPG13 in my thread?

There are no real gainers apart from the PPC's/Scammers. No reduction in car journeys, shops loosing business, people feeling stressed and rushed by ludicrous car parking schemes.

I seriously believe to get any long term changes a serious lobby needs to tackle it from that angle. We could spend the rest of our lives fighting PPC's and worrying about whether we were going to get back to the car in time!!

Hitchedguide

Ok so NGP have rejected my calls to cancel the PCN for overstay. They Are not claiming parking charges but instead are claiming a parking tariff. Will this make a difference when I submit my appeal to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

It means you will need to look carefully at the wording of their signs and their Notices/PCN to see whether they do actually call it a charge for 'breach' or 'failure to comply'. If so, then they HAVE to show the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Show us your draft POPLA appeal.

Hitchedguide

The Notice to Keeper shows they are claiming a parking charge whilst the response to my appeal to NGP states they claiming a parking tariff and no mention of parking charge. The signs at the car park only mention parking tariff.

Hitchedguide

POPLA REF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CAR REG XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Iam the registered keeper of the above vehicle and would like toappeal and have cancelled the parking charge notice issued by NewGeneration Parking Ltd for the following reasons:

1. NewGeneration Parking Ltd (NGP) has no contractual authority

TheParking Charge Notice received from New Generation Parking Ltd doesnot provide any evidence that they have any proprietary interest inthe car park/land in question, neither have they provided me with anyevidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from eitherthe driver or keeper. I submit that New Generation Parking do not ownor have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can onlyassume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead.Further they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I would ask that POPLArequest a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with thelandowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract would notsuffice). The contract needs to state that New Generation Parking Ltdare entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue ofPenalty Charge Notices and the courts. This should be an actual copyand not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

2.The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Thewording of the Penalty Charge Notice is clearly an attempt to enforcethis charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice inwhich it states that this must be a genuine pre-estimate of the lossthat may have been incurred. New Generation Parking Ltd claim that mycar 'exceeded maximum stay on site' it does not state for how longand yet they are asking for a charge of £100 for this penalty. Thisis an excessive Penalty and far more than the cost to the landownercould have lost for the time my car is alleged to have parked there.The charge is clearly punitive and disproportionate to any allegedbreach of contract. I submit my vehicle was not parked in breach ofany parking restrictions and the car park was not full and thereforewas not stopping someone parking. Therefore the landowner did notincur any cost in either income generated by a parking space orcustom to local businesses.

Furthermore as the operator isclearly seeking to impose a penalty it is their sole responsibilityto provide a full breakdown as proof of the pre-estimated loss of£100. As of this point they have made no effort to provide me with abreakdown of the costs they allegedly incurred. To justify the chargeof £100, I require New Generation Parking Ltd to evidence theirparking charge by providing POPLA with a full and detailed financialbreakdown of the pre-estimated costs they have suffered as a resultof the charge in question. I would like to add that normal costs ofrunning their business (their day to day costs like provision ofparking, enforcement, signage, salaries, rent etc) must not beincluded in the breakdown as New Generation Parking Ltd would need topay these irrespective of this alleged charge. Parking enforcementcosts cannot possibly represent any loss resulting from an allegedbreach of contract, as these costs would need to be paid whether thebreach had happened or not.

In summary not only is the £100charge completely disproportionate meaning that it is punitive and isbreaking the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, but there can be no lossshown at all as no pre-estimate charge has been put together makingthe charge unenforceable against keeper or the driver.

3.Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

Askeeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the nameof the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parkingcompany have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as towho the driver was I submit that I am not liable to any charge. Inregards to the Parking Charge Notice I have received New GenerationParking has made it clear that it is operating under The Protectionof Freedoms Act but has not fully met all the keeper liabilityrequirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. Theparking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursuethe driver.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates thatsome mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper.If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeperis invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 hasnot been complied with. The Act clearly states that the parkingcharge notice to keeper should invite the registered keeper to paythe outstanding parking charge (or if he/she was not the driver, toprovide the name and address of the driver and pass a copy of thenotice on to that driver). In their parking charge notice letter atno point did they actually invite me as the registered keeper to paythe parking charge. Instead they imply that my only choice is to giveup the name of the driver of the vehicle (when in actual fact I amunder no legal obligation to do so). The wording of the PCN actuallymakes it sound like I have little choice but to give up the driverand does not actually state the choice to pay it myself. I would alsolike to point out that the Act stipulates that the parking companymust provide me with the period the car was parked. In the PCNreceived from NGP it does not provide evidence regarding the periodof parking(photographs from a number plate recognition camera showinga vehicle on a road) is not actually valid or sufficient on its ownas a form of evidence. New Generation Parking should also have issueda Notice to Driver attached to the vehicle to back up their claims thatthe car was ever parked in the first place, which in this case theyfailed to do.

4. Use of ANPR cameras
New Generation ParkingLtd have failed to provide any evidence that cameras used at thissite comply with the BPA's code of conduct (part 21 (ANPR)). I wouldask that POPLA consider the whole of this part of the code to decideif New Generation Parking Ltd has complied in its evidence. This wasthe total sum of their evidence but it does not actually show thatthe vehicle was parked at at any time; making it completelyunsuitable for proving a supposed contract of this nature has evenbeen breached. They should be required to issue a physical Notice toDriver on the windscreen in order to provide further proof that theircontract had been breached.

5. No Contract was entered intobetween the New Generation Parking and the Driver or Registeredkeeper

I would submit that the signs at the car park inquestion are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms andconditions that they are alleged to be entering into by physicallyentering the car park. New Generation Parking clearly relies oncontract law, but is unclear what the terms and conditions of thecontract are, making it far too easy for users to unwittingly falloutside the terms of contract. The signs are placed too high coupledwith the small text means it is impossible to read all theinformation contained within. I would request that POPLA ask forevidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider ifthe methods used are clear enough for this type of car park.Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into ifenough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract tohave been entered into the driver would have had to get out of thecar, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and thenagree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I requestthat New Generation Parking Ltd provide concrete evidence that acontract existed between themselves and the driver on the day inquestion, which meets all the legal requirements of forming acontract. They should include specific things like, agreement fromboth parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not metthen the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Termsin Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

6. Unfair terms ofcontract

Although there is no contract between New GenerationParking and the driver or keeper, if there were then I would askPOPLA to consider this charge to be unfair and non binding based onthe Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. There is aclear list of terms that apply. I have highlighted the followingspecifically as I believe they apply directly to this case:

2.(1) (e) Terms which have the object or effect of requiring anyconsumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay adisproportionately high sum in compensation.

5. (1) Acontractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall beregarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, itcauses a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligationsarising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

5.(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individuallynegotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer hastherefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

TheUnfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was brought in toprotect consumers from unfair contracts such as the one NewGeneration Parking Ltd are suggesting. A company such as NGP needs toactually prove that the driver saw, read and accepted the terms,which is impossible because this did not happen.

7. Without acontract

Without a contract it would seem the most appropriateoffence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award New Generation Parking Ltd could seek would be damages. Aster was no damage to car park there was no loss to them andtherefore should be no charge.

I respectfully request thatthis parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

Coupon-mad

Hitchedguide wrote: »

The Notice to Keeper shows they are claiming a parking charge whilst the response to my appeal to NGP states they claiming a parking tariff and no mention of parking charge. The signs at the car park only mention parking tariff.

No that's not what you need to establish. Obviously it's called a parking charge notice (they always are). In my post above, I said:

'you will need to look carefully at the wording of their signs and their Notices/PCN to see whether they do actually call it a charge for 'breach' or 'failure to comply'.

Hitchedguide

The PCN actually states 'the vehicle has been recorded in breach of the terms and conditions of the site' does this mean I need to re word my POPLA appeal draft?