Fighting a PPC - going to POPLA

ezerscrooge

Great posts and information on this site - many thanks to the many posters who have so far assited (albeit unknowingly) with wording my appeals and getting the details right. Wife got a 'charge' notice from a PPC for being parked where she may not have done - the ink was smudged and the figures could not be read (the PPC wanted me to post it to them but I know from other posters that these things get 'lost in the post' so I kept hold of it).

The retail park had a now-defunct-PPC parking sign on the perifery, and numerous new-PPC signs ("£100 charge reduced to £60" for quick payment). In the new-PPC response to the first appeal they sent a reply with a picture of a sign stating "£90 charge reduced to £60" for quick payment. I replied stating that this is is breach of the BPA code as it did not offer a 40% discount and is different to those on site. So they replied stating that the charge is "£90 reduced to £54", that their appeal is concluded and to pay up or go to POPLA.

4 'contracts' of which 3 are from the same operator.

I've now drafted the POPLA letter and included the excellent guidance on this site (strict proof etc.), the differing 'charge notices', the GPEOL (I'd expect it to be quite different for a £100 charge and £90 charge), and all the other bits recommended.

Anything else I can chuck in?

Wish me luck and thanks. It's been a steep learning curve.

Guys_Dad

Have a read of my core points here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

I would definitely put in the no contract and "does the landowner know" point in the same para. Just in the last couple of days, a landowner (Tesco) came down on a lessee who had not had their permission to engage a PPC and the charge was cancelled.

ezerscrooge

Thanks Guys Dad.

Got those points in. I think I'm about ready, but I'll mull on it before firing it off - so I can spend a bit more time sifting through the reasons for successful appeals and to make sure I've not missed any specific wording.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Check those links out as well but please tell us:

- which PPC this is?

- does their signage and ticket actually say the charge is for 'breach of' or 'failure to comply with' terms?

because there are circumstances where 'no GPEOL' will not be such a reliable point. I would recommend you show us the signage and the ticket unless it's a bog-standard UKPC or PCM charge where they are clearly alleging breach.

ezerscrooge

Hi CM.

It is UKPC Ltd you guessed right. The signage states 'failure to comply' whilst the ticket states 'breach of the terms'.

Happy to forward you the full appeal letter (not yet sent) to your PM, but I am aware that you have a life.

Interesting to note that the signs have been changed at the retail park now - a big sign at the entrance, and existing signs have changed to state that a charge will be issued if the driver parks on site but then personally leaves the site boundary.

Hovite_2

Can I just say it's nice to see someone do their research, not panic and even hold back to check their work before sending.

ezerscrooge

Thanks Hovite.

Got to get it right, if I lose this this, then I will be facing the small claims court - fighting these boggers to the bitter end.

If I win, then I'll make the letter used available to all - not that it's greatly different to the excellent templates on here 'put to strict proof' No GPEoL etc. (though it has some changes for the particular circumstances).

I did make some novice mistakes at first (not waiting for NTK), then I calmed down, trawled this site and put my boxing gloves on.

Only wish I had played them at ther own game, and made it clear that if the PPC refused my appeal and for them to lose the POPLA appeal that I would charge them for the time taken to prepare my POPLA appeal (a GPEoL of 4 hours at £10 per hour). Something for the future perhaps ;-)

ezerscrooge

Just sent an email to the Letters page of the local newspaper to advise people on the change in parking terms at the site where am fighting my 'charge' - warning readers of the newly added 'charge issued when vehicle parked but person has left the site' bit. I'm absolutely certain loads of people using the car park won't notice the subtle change to the signs and will get stung.

And refering people to MSE to fight any tickets issued. And to complain about the PPC to the retailers.

The PPCs have violently rattled my cage and created another hard campaigner against them.

Coupon-mad

ezerscrooge wrote: »

Got to get it right, if I lose this this, then I will be facing the small claims court - fighting these boggers to the bitter end.

Not with UKPC you won't, never have done! Their website about small claims cases isn't true, IMHO:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4814487

They have never to our knowledge tried a small claim re a fake PCN - and some posters, like me, go back years on this parking forum. They have been to court though!!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597

and were reported by this forum's members for a serious DPA breach:

http://nutsville.com/2013/03/31/british-parking-association-member-ukpc-in-epic-data-protection-failure/

Seeing them for what they are now? Laughing at them?!

ezerscrooge wrote: »

If I win, then I'll make the letter used available to all - not that it's greatly different to the excellent templates on here 'put to strict proof' No GPEoL etc. (though it has some changes for the particular circumstances).

I did make some novice mistakes at first (not waiting for NTK), then I calmed down, trawled this site and put my boxing gloves on.

Only wish I had played them at ther own game, and made it clear that if the PPC refused my appeal and for them to lose the POPLA appeal that I would charge them for the time taken to prepare my POPLA appeal (a GPEoL of 4 hours at £10 per hour). Something for the future perhaps ;-)

Sounds like you have done the research, good on you. And you have read my sticky thread as I saw your quote about me having a life (I am a working wife and Mum of four, as well as being one of the 'forum guru's' according to the PPCs!). The extra apostrophe in 'guru's' was courtesy of some illiterate plank at another PPC who are nastier than UKPC.

You can show your draft appeal here perfectly safely. UKPC are not a firm to hide from as you beat them at POPLA!

ezerscrooge wrote: »

The PPCs have violently rattled my cage and created another hard campaigner against them.

Stick around - it's how we all started and the numbers of regular, knowledgeable posters here is growing all the time!

Coupon-mad

ezerscrooge wrote: »

Hi CM.

It is UKPC Ltd you guessed right. The signage states 'failure to comply' whilst the ticket states 'breach of the terms'.

Happy to forward you the full appeal letter (not yet sent) to your PM, but I am aware that you have a life.

Interesting to note that the signs have been changed at the retail park now - a big sign at the entrance, and existing signs have changed to state that a charge will be issued if the driver parks on site but then personally leaves the site boundary.

If you have hosted pictures on tinypic or photobucket, you can show them to us by posted a reply with a broken link (remove the http:// from the start).

ezerscrooge

Thanks for those links C-M. Love that one of the chap in bed with his machine - might explain how they get the notices to stick to the windscreen. urgh.

I'll have a crack at getting the pictures up.

The letter is this.. and the 'evidence x' is a picture/pdf of the 4 different 'contracts'.

[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Unclear contract terms [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Not responding to the appeal in 14 days[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
·· [FONT=&quot]Unlawful Penalty Charge[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Business Rates & Business Legitimacy[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Unclear Contract Terms - [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There are 2 differing notices displayed at the site (evidence 1 & evidence 2). The first notice is located on the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx building and states clearly that it covers the retail park. Furthermore upon first appeal, UKPC have added the third notice (evidence 3) as an appendix to their letter. My own investigations reveal that the first notice is from a historic operator of the site, the second notice is one that UKPC have added to the site, and the third notice is the terms they claim the driver has agreed to. Inspection of the notices (and charge amounts) clearly show differing levels of ‘charge’. Additionally the discount level in the third notice does not meet the BPA Code of Conduct – in that the reduction is from (£90 to £60; only 33%) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A reply to my second appeal letter (evidence 4) has since stated that the charge is £90 reduced to £54. So we now 4 different contract terms. As such, it can be stated that the contract is ambiguous and that the operator is now attempting to renegotiate the contract.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - The demand for a payment of £100 (or £90, £60 or £54 depending on which notice you look at) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The two UKPC signs states that a PCN would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking, which indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. My initial appeal to UKPC Ltd stated that the parking charge is a sum sought for ‘liquidated damages’, in other words compensation agreed in advance. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. UKPC Ltd has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
The BPA Code of Practice states:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.“[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I put UKPC Ltd to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date UKPC have refused to provide me with a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident – or indeed how they have arrived at the differing charge levels of £100 and £90 (or £60 or £54 depending on which contract is used). I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business 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 in this pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Not responding to initial appeal within 14 days - According to BPA guidelines, UKPC must respond to appeal letters within 14 days. My letter to UKPC was dated 30th September and posted on 1st October. It is reasonable to expect that letter to be received on Thursday 3rd October at UKPC offices. UKPC sent a reply on a letter dated 21st October and was received by me on 22nd October. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A further letter of acknowledgement was received by me on the 23rd October. This later was dated 18th October. It is highly suspect that a letter dated the 21st October was received on the 22nd October yet a letter dated 18th October is not received until 23rd October. I put it to UKPC Ltd that they have failed to respond within the 14 days – dates can be placed on letters to suit the circumstances. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]UKPC must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles UKPC to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I put UKPC to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the UKPC produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and UKPC. 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 UKPC and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that UKPC can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Business Rates & Business Legitimacy[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by UKPC, which is entirely separate from any other businesses the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for UKPC, I do not believe that UKPC has the necessary planning permission or have declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I put UKPC to strict proof that the necessary planning permission is in place, and that they have registered the business they are operating at xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates. Failure to do so indicates that they are not operating a legitimate business from the premises.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]