KPS parking charge help.

Coupon-mad

Wood_duck wrote: »

Photos of original notice

i41.tinypic.com/2h5k68k.jpg

i44.tinypic.com/nfhf86.jpg

Here are your pictures:

http://i44.tinypic.com/nfhf86.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/2h5k68k.jpg


...and you can find POPLA appeals with the points Umkomaas made, in the 'How to win at POPLA' link in the 'NEWBIES' sticky thread. In fact it is the link I already gave you in post #6 - if you based your POPLA appeal on one from there then I suggest having another look at more recent ones because 'unreasonable' isn't normally a worthwhile paragraph in our experience whereas 'unclear signage' always is (regardless!).

Wood_duck

Ok, to form my argument for PoPLA in my specific case I can probably put forward.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Signage (maybe, as their photographic evidence shows the van parked within about 5 metres of a sign)
3. No Contract with landowner
4. Trespass
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge

I'm not so sure about the following.
Only because it was a parking outside the markings rather than overstay charge. Most charges I've read on here are about overstaying.

6. Business Rates
7. ANPR Accuracy

Would it be wise to write to or call KPS again and ask about landownership, contracts and so on and try and talk to the owners of the carpark? It was right next to the Pub so they would be the obvious choice as to who owns the carpark. Do I have any chance of getting information out of them or is it best I just go through PoPLA?

To tell you the truth, I would rather write to them and say these are the things I'm going to contest you on.. save yourself £27. I'm going back to Australia before the due date anyway. Either way its not getting paid.

Redx

I would forget business rates , concentrate on the signage and no gpeol etc (the point here is you include these points to make them prove their point, not just because you can or cannot, like tennis you serve the ball and its their job to knock it back) , so you make them prove their case

if anpr wasnt used (if it was a pcn) then anpr isnt relevant and doesnt make much difference in your case

never phone them up , never try and plead your case, they have hearts of stone and no compassion

in fact , they dont want to hear your pleas , they just want the pounds in your pocket , as many of them as they can get their greedy hands on - thank you very much !!

always a good idea to try and get the landowner to waive the charge and I am sure its in the sticky thread as well as the advice I give out on here too

Wood_duck

can I say,

As the vehicle in question was on lease under my signature on the date this Parking Charge Notice was issued I take responsibility as registered keeper.

Or is it better to just say I was the driver in the PoPLA appeal?

Wood_duck

Dear POPLAAssessor,
KPS verification codexxxxxxxxxx

As the vehicle in question was on lease under my signature on the date this Parking Charge Notice was issued I take responsibility as registered keeper. I wish to appeal this recent parking charge from Kernow Parking Solutions. I believe I am not liablefor the parking charge on the following grounds:



1. No contract withlandowner

2. No genuine pre-estimate of loss

3. Unlawful penalty clause

4. Non-compliant notice to keeper

5. Inadequate, unclear, and poorly worded signage


1) No standing or authority to pursuecharges nor form contracts with drivers
KPS do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Under the BPA CoPSection 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow KPS to pursue chargesin their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts withdrivers. I require KPS to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and without it, KPS have no legalstanding nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No.3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam,Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of£90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred with the view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. I submit that this applies in my case as well because the parkingcontract- if one is even produced - is a similar business agreement between an agent and landowner, nothing more.

If KPS produce a 'witness statement' I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable andnot proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.


2) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Notice from KPS alleges that abreach of the terms and conditions of parking have occurred and so the charge levied must therefore be damages that KPS are seeking in redress. The charge brought forward by KPS has nothing to do with an ‘invalid permit’ or ‘failure to pay and display’ as the vehicle was parked on this site for a total of forty five minutes and full payment for this time (and more) was made.

KPS have issued this charge for breaking the condition that the vehicle was ‘not parked in an allocated parking bay’. I strongly contest this charge as the vehicle was ‘in’an allocated bay. If KPS require vehicles to park ‘within’ marked bays they should use more explicit language on their signage. On the date of incident the car park was close to empty. There was no damage nor obstruction caused (see evidence of original PCN) so there can be no loss arising from the incident. Neither can KernowParking Solutions lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in enforcing parking restrictions atthe site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administration staff)in any 'loss' claimed. See VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICESLIMITED -v- MR R IBBOTSONand A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K, Oxford County Court. This does not represent aloss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words,were no breach to have occurred, the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by PoPLA itself in adjucation.

The Office of FairTrading 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 beused 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, so this charge breaches the code and is unenforceable.

Given there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss the charge levied is unenforceable and the charge should be cancelled.



3) Unlawfulpenalty clause - revenue for KPS
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 ParkingEye vSmith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by KPS is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law.

4) Notice to Keeper not compliant withthe PoFA 2012.
Under the terms ofthe Protection of Freedoms Act, specifically Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, KPS must identify the creditor who is legally entitled to recover parking charges on their Notice to Keeper. The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made.They have failed to do so, and so they have no right under the PoFA to reclaim parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be reliedupon to establish liability under Paragraph 8 or 9 it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant withthe Act, it was not properly issued.




5)The signage wasnot compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and there was no valid contract formed between the KPS and the driver

The signage displaying the information regarding the PCN and the terms of the contract, one faces at thiscar park were located in places where a driver has difficulty to see them. This goes directly against BPA code of practice. Due to their position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are veryhard to read and understand.
I contendthat the signs and any core parking terms KPS are relying upon were too smallfor any driver to see, read or understand.

The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B which sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including''The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take inall the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead”. The sign shown in a photograph used as evidence by KPS in my rejection letter is in the very back corner of the car park. Once a driver has entered a car park without noticing any signage and carefully parked their vehicle they are not going to go out of their way to read a small sign,especially if it is not on the driver’s side of the vehicle.

I would please request that KPS demonstrates with evidence, signage map/photos on this point so they can checked that they meet the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest vVine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])




Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER


How am I looking?
Why does this edit my word document and shove words together with no spaces?
I've tried to fix this but there's still bound to be a few sorry!

Coupon-mad

Don't know why the forum shoves words together like that, others have found the same so it's not you!

That's a good appeal!

I would suggest you start like this, no need to 'take responsibility' as such:

''As the vehicle in question was on lease under my signature on the date this Parking Charge Notice was issued I am the 'keeper' as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.''

And this month I am suggesting that all people do their POPLA appeal online due to postal delays. Tick 3 out of 4 reasons for appeal (just not the stolen car one).

Wood_duck

Great! So send via online and send evidence on Monday?

Redx

yes. amend and send (including any attachments)

4consumerrights

Wood duck - spotted something sent a pm message.

In view of you leaving the country you may also like to consider contacting the landowner/retailer directly to complain and get this charge cancelled - due to the long wait with POPLA.


*****************************

Kernow Parking Solutions are difficult to find!

No website but:

Robert Ley is the man behind - named on Linkedin: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Bill/Ley

The op's parking charge notice gives a mobile number for phone payments and a postal box office for sending payments.

Deciphering the small print gave a serviceable address: 13-15 Commercial Road, Hayle Cornwall which is the address for accountants:

http://www.pryorbegentfryco.me.uk

Seems like Kernow like hiding in the shadows!

Wood_duck

I've just tried to send my popla appeal. However, the verification code says "Verification number invalid - please re-enter the code. If it is not recognised please contact the operator who issued you with the verification code." Im sure I have it right. This is proving difficult! I'm upset that now I have to go back to KPS so they can give me the right code!!