PPC PCN help please

retep53

CM, Writing as the keeper was the one thing I definitely got from the advice and I am already uplifted by the POPLA thread.
As to why I was confused, I think it was the fact that I was looking for a case like the driver of my vehicle and went off on threads from threads which confused me. I'm pretty sure that list I referred to earlier was on Pepipoo but I may be mistaken.

Thanks again

retep53

Received the PPC appeal refusal about a week before Christmas. Was too busy between then and today to start putting together my appeal to POPLA. As I'm a NEWBIE I don't expect to be able to post it here but I have pieced it together following guidance on the POPLA thread.

Coupon-mad

Good, please show us your draft (you can copy & paste it). It's quite safe because Athena will see it soon enough and we need to get it right because Athena do try to cover the 'no pre-estimate of loss' thing in their signs sometimes. You may not win on that point.

Out of interest, has every letter and sign used the name with 'Ltd' after it, or have they also called themselves 'Athena A N P R'?

retep53

Hi CM. Sorry for misleading you in the thread by not correcting this earlier. The PPC is NOT Athena, its ECP.
I shall copy & paste what I intend to send (should I do it on-line or by snail mail, I don't have a printer, so will have to print at a library) on here when I have made a non-personal version.

retep53

Here is the appeal:

Date

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: POPLA appeals reference xxxxxxxxxx
Euro Car Parks PCN: xxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg. xxxxxxxx and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice from Euro Car Parks Limited relating to the xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx car park for the reasons set-out below.

1) The PCN (Notice to Keeper) received does not comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 para 9.2.b as it does not specifically state “that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking”

2) The driver states that they did not see any signage at the car park. Therefore there was no valid contract formed between Euro Car Parks Limited and the driver (consideration/offer and acceptance).

3) As the registered keeper, I submit that the signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B.
In particular, there is no sign in the eye-line of drivers approaching the one-way xxxxxxxx xxxx entrance to the car park and at the xxxxx xxxx entrance the sign is only visible to drivers approaching from the xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx direction and not to the majority of users of that entrance who would approach from the other direction.

4) As the registered keeper, I do not believe that Euro Car Parks has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give them any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Euro Car Parks lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.
I also believe that there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Euro Car Parks to levy these charges and therefore Euro Car Parks has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). Euro Car Parks must prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

5) The charge is a penalty and not a “Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss”.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.
The £90 charge asked for cannot be for any losses caused to the retail outlets on the site as when the alleged breach of conditions started (on a Sunday and after 3 hours of permitted free parking) all of the retailers on site had closed business for the day. Similarly the land-owners themselves would not have suffered any loss.
The charge must relate to genuine losses and not general running costs which would have been incurred in any case.
A reduced charge of £50 for payment within 14 days would also seem to prove that the £90 charge cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to order Euro Car Parks Limited to cancel the PCN.

Yours truly,
X. XXXXXX (Registered Keeper)

Coupon-mad

Looks fine - and I predict you will win against ECP on the 'not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss' point, sometime in February!

retep53

What no tweeks needed? Do I do it on-line or snail mail though I don't have a printer, so the latter course may be awkward.
Thanks CM

Coupon-mad

Online is best - you may have to try a different browser if you get an error code (some people report that Firefox works for a POPLA submission but not another browser). If you get an error code it's unlikely to be the POPLA code that's not correct.

Your appeal is fine; it has the winning points we know will prevail.

retep53

Thanks again CM, I'll try online in the morning. I use Google Chrome, do you know if that is OK?

4consumerrights

Your POPLA appeal looks fine and is a winner.

If you use firefox when submitting line - it tends to merge the paragraphs together, when the acknowledgement comes back from POPLA - not sure if they receive it like that or not.

The way around this is to firstly submit as normal on-line - wait for their acknowledgement and check if it's all there (sometimes lines do go missing as well). If the paragraphs are merged then send an email to that using the same verification code and attach the POPLA appeal as a word document (PDF does not work).

I was also surprised to read that it was ECP and not Athena as you mentioned Athena in your earlier post!