UK Parking Control - Ticket not compliant?

ezerscrooge

I beat them with this....

______________

[FONT=&quot]Car Reg : xxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Location: : xxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date of PCN issue : xxxxxx [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PCN Number : xxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/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 YYY[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Business Rates & Business Legitimacy[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The YYY 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. YYY 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 YYY to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date YYY 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. 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]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for YYY[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This transparently punitive charge by YYY is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. YYY's own website is damning in this regard. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So this is (as is proven by the Operator's own website) a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.[/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] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No authority to levy charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/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]YYY 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 YYY 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 YYY to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the YYY produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and YYY. 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 YYY and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that YYY 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] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Business Rates & Business Legitimacy[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by YYY, which is entirely separate from any other businesses the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for YYY, I do not believe that YYY 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 YYY to strict proof that the necessary planning permission is in place, and that they have registered the business they are operating at xxxxxxxxxx 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]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This concludes my appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Kind regards[/FONT]

__________________


Of course, swap the YYYs

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Dont bother with no 4, its not relevent

4consumerrights

@CH7 - what they spouted in their letter to you is a load of drivel - and possibly sourced from their special coaching sessions. I have seen identical wording from different parking companies to substantiate this.

Parking companies will do anything to try and avoid showing their contract - and the spiel that it is confidential is ridiculous and a charade as they attempt to conceal the true nature of their contract - in that they are merely agents without the locus standi to bring about court action themselves.



When you do your POPLA appeal - do include a section that UKPC raise all their revenue from parking tickets and offer their services free to their clients, with a 10% rebate of all parking charges collected.

The terms and conditions are devised by UKPC and are not agreed until after a contract has been signed. Therefore this business model is reliant on entrapment of motorists to collect money and that as such the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty as there was no loss incurred to the landowner by the alleged contravention of not displaying a permit. No loss was incurred by this action and the OFT has stated that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to create a loss where no loss exists.


Include also a section regarding signage and that no contract was made with the driver due to inadequate and non compliant signage.

I agree with KIFL about paragraph 4 in this case - irrelevant in your situation and at POPLA - though PPCs are under their COP required to ensure that their business adheres to all relevant legistaiont. I do like to include this part in other cases especially Parking Eye.


Post up your POPLA appeal before submitting please.

UKPC parking ticket
visit https://www.parkingticketappeals.org.uk
https://www.popla.me.uk

CH_7

See post #52 for new draft

CH_7

Here's the signage. The first photo is actually taken by UKPC, nothing like using their own 'evidence' against them

CH_7

What do we think?

Not sure if it's worth waiting for the DVLA to get back to me again too.

Coupon-mad

1. What secret clause and misleading omission are you alleging? Normally that paragraph only applies where it's a retail car park with a secret agreement with the Store to cancel a fake PCN if a customer complains.

2. usual well-known template bluster = Parking Eye only.

3. 'Witness statement' = ParkingEye only.

You've copied too much from a PE example so far.

Guys_Dad

And your GPEOL paragraph is not as clear as the earlier one on this thread.

Please keep things simple and to the point using previous winners against this specific PPC. You will increase the odds in your favour.

4consumerrights

Ditto Guys Dad and Coupon -

And still you omitted how UKPC offer their services free and raise all their revenue from the issuing of parking charges!

CH_7

Thanks guys. Will get a second draft done.

4consumerrights wrote: »

Ditto Guys Dad and Coupon -

And still you omitted how UKPC offer their services free and raise all their revenue from the issuing of parking charges!

I did raise the issue in the last paragraph of the GPEOL section;

CH_7 wrote: »

UKPC raise all of their revenue from parking tickets, and, alongside a 10% rebate of all their parking charges collected from that area, offer their services for free to clients. Therefore this business model is clearly reliant on the unethical entrapment of motorists to collect money, and as such the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty, since there was no loss incurred to the landowner by the alleged contravention of not displaying a permit.