Uk carpark mgmt notice to keeper

mcse17

Stroma wrote: »

Okay send this to them


Dear parking company


The registered keeper of xxxxxx is in receipt of your rejection of the appeal of the invoice xxxxx, the contents of this letter is noted.

As you have rejected this appeal, you have failed to provide a popla verification code to appeal to them, this is a direct breach of the BPA Code of Practice! So complaints are being made to them and the dvla about your conduct in this matter.

Now I am not going to ask repeatedly for you to abide your own code of conduct, but if the popla code is not supplied within 14 days the matter will be closed, and you will have lost the ability to hold the registered keeper liable!

Finally you can simply cancel this charge now, because as you know breaches of the BPA Code of Practice is an automatic win at popla.

Faithfully

Hi, sorry just got back from hols and still got jet lag.. they did provide popla on the reverse of the original letter which I failed to notice.

I now need to decide what to write in the popla appeal..... sorry for misunderstandings.. I'll review the newbies sections and draft appeal for review here...

Umkomaas

Note that you have 28 days from the date of the rejection letter from the PPC to get your POPLA appeal submitted. This date is rigid, miss it and you miss the one and only 'golden' opportunity to get this cancelled. You're then in for loads of hassle, so don't miss the deadline. You've been warned !!

mcse17

Umkomaas wrote: »

Note that you have 28 days from the date of the rejection letter from the PPC to get your POPLA appeal submitted. This date is rigid, miss it and you miss the one and only 'golden' opportunity to get this cancelled. You're then in for loads of hassle, so don't miss the deadline. You've been warned !!

The letter was dated 16th Dec so I'll try to draft reply within next few days.. I'll check the newbies section to see if I can get anything from there..

Redx

once you have your reply and checked on here, if posting it can be printed and stapled to that popla sheet, but also fill in that sheet as well, but only then

if submitting the appeal online , then the sheet is not filled in , so again you need your notepad appeal (or word appeal) , use firefox or opera or a suitable browser when appealing online

or do both , online + snail mail with free proof of posting

as mentioned above , DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE , it has to be "there" for that deadline , not "in the post"

mcse17

Redx wrote: »

once you have your reply and checked on here, if posting it can be printed and stapled to that popla sheet, but also fill in that sheet as well, but only then

if submitting the appeal online , then the sheet is not filled in , so again you need your notepad appeal (or word appeal) , use firefox or pera or a suitable browser when appealing online

or do both , online + snail mail with free proof of posting

as mentioned above , DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE , it has to be "there" for that deadline , not "in the post"

Ive just been reviewing the newbies section and dont know where to start with this I was thinking of maybe using the below...


The Appellant does not dispute the Operator’s case that they were not parked within a designated area/parking bay. It is the Appellant’s case that the £100 parking charge far exceeds the cost to the land owner for the period over which their vehicle was parked at the site.

The signage produced in evidence by the Operator states that a parking charge notice would be issued for "failure to comply" with the parking conditions. This wording appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. 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.

UKCPM submitted that they believe that the charge forms part of a contract and the term states that you agree to pay the parking charge fee of £100 and they state "the parking charge fee is not a pre-estimate of loss to the land". So how then do they justify the fee of £100 ?

Any thoughts on the above ?? Is it ok to submit ?

Redx

I take it you missed this one ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

just amend it to suit

now which one do YOU prefer ?

esmerobbo

mcse17 wrote: »

The letter was dated 16th Dec so I'll try to draft reply within next few days.. I'll check the newbies section to see if I can get anything from there..

is your POPLA appeal ???350??? middle 3 should be 350?

mcse17

esmerobbo wrote: »

is your POPLA appeal ???350??? middle 3 should be 350?

Yes it is...

esmerobbo

mcse17 wrote: »

Yes it is...

That's fine, seen a couple lately out of date. One received 11/12/13 dated 15/11/13.

mcse17

Thanks for the link.. after reviewing the text Ive decided to go with the following...

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. 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 parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

2. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

3. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

Here are the detailed appeal points.


1. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

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

2. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

3. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs 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 flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company 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.

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.

This concludes my appeal.