UKPCS Ticket

hollie.weimeraner

Images



http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q40/Lancs_Lad/ParkingSign1.jpg


http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q40/Lancs_Lad/NorthBankEntrance2.jpg


http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q40/Lancs_Lad/NorthBankEntrance.jpg


http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q40/Lancs_Lad/NorthBankEntrance1.jpg

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Dont bother with pictures, they are a waste of time, as you just need to include the winning points

hollie.weimeraner

Any comments on the POPLA appeal above would be greatly appreciated

Coupon-mad

It looks fine and I would just use your entrance pictures (not the signage one). Your entrance pics support the first point nicely.

Does the NTK state the 'period of parking' or parking time? I seem to recall UKCPS versions of the NTK have a flaw in wording that is worth another appeal point. You should be able to find it by searching this forum for 'UKCPS NTK' as keywords or 'UKCPS POPLA' to find other POPLA appeals which may have included it. The wording of the NTK is fundamental to them trying/failing to establish keeper liability so it's worth digging for if the POPLA code isn't about to 'time out' (28 days only!).

If it were me I would just move this paragraph up to the end of your point #1 about 'no contract thru signage ' as it follows on from that better than in isolation at the end:

A third party agent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found 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 Parking Eye and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park. I submit that this applies in this case as well.

hollie.weimeraner

That's brilliant thanks coupon-mad. I have also re read the original NTK which was dated 3/12/13. The PCN was issued on 30/10/13 so I will also be appealing the fact that the NTK was not issued within 14 days (not sure how that point was missed originally :mad:) but they may just come back with a photo. If not it will surely fail on that point alone.

hollie.weimeraner

OK appeal submitted online and full transcript email received acknowledging the submission. Is there any need to post a copy?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

no not at all

hollie.weimeraner

Does anyone know if POPLA are meeting their forecasts in dealing with appeals? I was informed I would have a response by 24th Feb but no sign of it yet.

bod1467

Give it a couple of days and if still no response chase them up.

hollie.weimeraner

Appeal successful:beer::j
Thank you to everyone who has assisted - keep up the good work

(Appellant)
-v-
UKCPS Limited (Operator)

On 30 October 2013, a parking charge notice was applied to a vehicle with
registration mark XXXXXXX for parking without displaying a valid permit or
authority.
The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking in the car
park are clearly displayed on numerous signage situated throughout the site.
The signage says: “Valid permits must be clearly displayed in the windscreen
at all times.” The Operator states that no valid permit was on display in the
windscreen of the vehicle on the day of charge. They have also enclosed a
copy of the parking charge notice, a genuine pre-estimate of cost statement,
and images of the site.
The Appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only
elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely
that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The Operator rejected the Appellant’s representations, as set out in the
correspondence they sent because, they state that a breach of the car park
conditions had occurred by parking with displaying a valid permit or
authority. They state that they incur various costs including wages,
maintenance and area manager costs among other costs and they provided
a list of costs with the appeal.
I find that the Operator has sought to justify the parking charge amount as
being a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I note that some heads submitted in this
present case may fall within a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nevertheless, I find
that some of them do not. In short, the damages sought on this particular
occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Aurela Qerimi