Popla appeal letter advice please

nellsnest

Appeal re : PCN number
Address of car park *********
Car registration ********


Dear sir / madam


I am the registered keeper of vehicle no : ******* and I am appealing against parking charge notice *********. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds.


1. As the registered keeper of the vehicle I was not the driver when this charge was issued.
2. The driver did not see the signs.
3. Neither the parking company nor their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists .
4. The parking company has no contract with the land owner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.
5. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate loss and the parking company have not provided a breakdown of charges.




Name








I have been reading the threads for advice and used a users letter template to do the above. Any advice for the appeal will be good.
On smart parking letter they have given the popla code and said to get the forms from the website. Is it better to do on line or to post the letter.
The pcn dates 10th incident and letter dated 16th, not sure if this needs to be on the letter as its not the registered keeper driving.

hoohoo

5. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate loss and the parking company have not provided a breakdown of charges

(this is the format the lead assessors asked motorists to use...or rather, told parking companies that if motorists didn't use that format they might side with the operators)

nellsnest

Will amend thankyou.

Guys_Dad

Is that it? Do you think that there is enough there to win?

I am torn. On one hand, I would love to see that go in and win. That would save the regulars here one hell of a lot of bother.

On the other hand, It's coming up to Christmas and I would hate to see anyone lose.

I did a core points guideline here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

There is a bit of difference. You have supplied the main point headings, but I feel that the message has evaporated somewhat.

But, it's your appeal - your choice.

On the online/post decision, I would do both.

Coupon-mad

''Is it better to do on line or to post the letter.''

What do you think, bearing in mind it's Christmas, there are postal delays and POPLA is about to close from 20th for the break?



''The pcn dates 10th incident and letter dated 16th, not sure if this needs to be on the letter as its not the registered keeper driving.''

I don't understand what you mean?

4consumerrights

If this OP's POPLA appeal goes ahead and wins being this brief - it will save everyone a lot of time.

I know KIFL will be delighted!

nellsnest

Dear sir/madam
I am the registered keeper of vehicle number ****** and I am appealing against the parking charge notice. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds

• As the registered keeper of the vehicle I was not the driver when this PCN was issued.
• The driver did not see the signs.
• Neither Smart Parking nor Asda has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists.
• Smart Parking has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.
• The amount demanded is not a genuine pre –estimate loss and Smart Parking have not provided a breakdown of charges.

• No contract with the driver.
  There is no contract between Smart Parking and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair a defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. So the requirements of forming a contract such as meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.
  
• The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between Smart Parking 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/photographs 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.
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.

• No right to charge motorists for overstaying.

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community to bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put Smart Parking to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

• 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.
  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 is accompanied by a letter on landowners headed note paper 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.
  
  
• The amount demanded is not a genuine pre – estimate of loss.

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. 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 e.g. 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.


I have updated what I will send off if ok. Thanks.

Coupon-mad

You are not 'sending it off' anywhere, it will be best to submit in the end, as an online POPLA appeal in December of course, as already mentioned.

Your bullet points at the top don't match the ones lower down, it's really confusing to read, like a jigsaw that's been messed up!

'How to win at POPLA' is a link in the 'Newbies read this first' sticky thread, near the top. Why not just use a pre-written version (from any similar PPC) in the links and show us that instead?

Was this a windscreen ticket at first, or purely a postal ticket for overstay, please?