PLEASE HELP!! PPC for No Permit

starstruck13

Is this sufficient? Also I have put up a picture of the sign, could anyone please have a look to see if there are any obvious points that are not compliant with BPA. I have tried looking into this, and although Ive been onto the BPA website, the document detailing compliancy is complicated.

"APPEAL RE: Park Direct CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2013, VEHICLE REG: **** ***
POPLA CODE:*******

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. 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.

Park Direct also stated in their rejection letter that they have to provide a copy of the contract they hold with the landowner to obtain the owners details from DVLA, which is untrue, I askes them to provide me with a copy and they refused.

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

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. Also the lighting in the car park was extremely dim which made it difficult to view the signs. 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 flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred to tenants, landowners and residents. This particular bay was not numbered therefore does not belong to any residents. There was only one other car parked at the time, so I was not preventing anyone else from parking, nor did I receive any complaints from other residents so would like to have a breakdown as to what losses they have incurred exactly.
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 at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs, residents permits) 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.

Redx

please alter the numbering to match the bullet points

starstruck13

Got my rejection letter from the PPC, so now have my POPLA code.

I started a new thread, but thought maybe I should have just continued here.

Heres the letter I have drafted up for my POPLA appeal



"APPEAL RE: Park Direct CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2013, VEHICLE REG: **** ***
POPLA CODE:*******

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. 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.

Park Direct also stated in their rejection letter that they have to provide a copy of the contract they hold with the landowner to obtain the owners details from DVLA, which is untrue, I askes them to provide me with a copy and they refused.

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

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. Also the lighting in the car park was extremely dim which made it difficult to view the signs. 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 flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred to tenants, landowners and residents. This particular bay was not numbered therefore does not belong to any residents. There was only one other car parked at the time, so I was not preventing anyone else from parking, nor did I receive any complaints from other residents so would like to have a breakdown as to what losses they have incurred exactly.
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 at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs, residents permits) 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.

starstruck13

[IMG]http://[/img]

The rejection letter received from the PPC

They say at the bottom that they have extended the reduced rate if I pay in the next 14 days. However, if you look you will see it still says £100, this is an error as the reduced rate would be £60, is this worth mentioning in the appeal.

starstruck13

In the rejection letter received from the PPC, they say at the bottom that they have extended the reduced rate if I pay in the next 14 days. However, if you look you will see it still says £100, this is an error as the reduced rate would be £60, is this worth mentioning in the appeal.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

starstruck13 wrote: »

Here is a picture of the sign, can anyone see anything that is not compliant.

http://tinypic.com/r/2ypazgi/8

Others may view it in terms of compliance, but as a lay person I would observe that although waiting and parking are restricted, it makes no mention of the restrictions on loading and unloading.

You may be aware that for a road user, loading and unloading is considered different to waiting or parking. If you consider the yellow lines on the road, to denote where loading and unloading is not permitted there is a further separate marking, vertical lines on the kerb. I would suggest that as it very specifically restricts waiting and parking, but there is no mention of loading and unloading, a reasonable motorist would infer that loading and unloading is acceptable based on common usage of parking signs. After all it says "strictly" which seems to be a statement that it is only these things it is seeking to define. You were neither parking nor waiting, you were unloading.

I wouldn't rely on this for a moment, but it might be enough to annoy them into changing the signs (more expense for them).

starstruck13

Redx wrote: »

please alter the numbering to match the bullet points

Hi Redx,

I have amended it as you said. do you think it is sufficient now?

Anhunedd

I'd have thought the main non-compliance of the sign with regards to the BPA was the fact they don't include the BPA/AOS logo.

Coupon-mad

Park Direct also stated in their rejection letter that they have to provide a copy of the contract they hold with the landowner to obtain the owners details from DVLA, which is untrue, I askes them to provide me with a copy and they refused.

This bit doesn't make sense - do you mean the rejection says they 'don't have to' which is true - they don't until POPLA. Also I don't think it's worth including as it adds nothing. Nor does the point above matter either (post #29) as again it adds nothing to actually win at POPLA.

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract

Does it though? THIS IS IMPORTANT! Show us the sign please. I am a bit concerned to get this bit perfect because there isn't much else yet in that POPLA appeal draft and you will need to add a paragraph about signage and about no grace period given. And if the sign does NOT read the same way as above, I think you will need a bit more advice to strengthen the wording generally. Is there a sign at the entrance, specifically?

A final thing which may give you another appeal point! Compare the NTO to paragraph 8 of the POFA2012 link, fairly near the top of the advice I give in the NEWBIES sticky thread. You need to check they have every word they should do - I doubt it!! It's easier than it sounds because paragraph 8 is in bullet points and they have to have that wording and use the word 'creditor' to identify themselves on that NTO letter. Is it not called a Notice to KEEPER?

Have a good look and show us the sign as well. We want to help you win.

Your threads need merging so please send a pm to Crabman or Soolin or lorweld or savvy.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4889400

Should all be on one thread to avoid repetition and the chance of you missing some advice.

Coupon-mad

starstruck13 wrote: »

Here is a picture of the sign, can anyone see anything that is not compliant.

http://tinypic.com/r/2ypazgi/8

Can't see it as I am at work but the main thing is for posters here to check that the sign talks about 'failure to comply' or 'breach' or 'contravening' the parking t&cs. Please don't rush to finish this POPLA appeal today as it hasn't got enough in it yet by my standards (!) and I have no idea about the sign (lack of BPA logo wouldn't win a POPLA appeal).

I have answered you here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4848482

These threads need merging as you are getting advice in 2 places which doesn't help you and confuses us!