POPLA Appeal, Please help

Bueze

Brief History


I got a parking ticket for parking in my company slot for just less than 20mins to enable me use the toilet as I was badly pressed. Since I was already in the building, I went ahead into the office to log unto my laptop and moved my car to my allocated company slot which is about 4mins walk away from where I initially parked while my laptop was booting. (Please note when I moved my car, there was no fine placed on my Screen) I finished work and discovered a fine has been placed on my windscreen at my allocated space. So whoever placed the parking fine must have seen me move the car and went over there to place it on my windscreen. My car was parked at its allocated space all day but got fined for parking at a free company Slot bay for less than 20 mins which clearly stated it was for my company Floor only. They have attached photographic evidence for me to see I parked there but not stated the duration I was parked or photographic evidence of where /when the notice was placed on my windscreen.

I have chased with CPP and was able to get a POPLA code

I'd be really grateful for any tips or any obvious errors/tips I should include in my appeal etc. Many thanks in advance

Bueze

Draft copy of POPLA Appeal below:


POPLAREF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CAR REG XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

As the registered keeper of the car mentioned above I would like to appeal on the parking charge notice issued by CPP for a number of reasons outlined below:


· Lack of Unclear Signage

· Unlawful Penalty Charge

· The charge is a penalty and not a genuinepre-estimate of loss

· CPP’s legal capacity to enforce/issue ParkingCharge Notices.

· Duration of Stay in the clearly allocatedcompany slot Car park

· Trespass

· Unfair Terms



· Lack of Unclear Signage

The operator’s case is that there is a clear signage at the site informing motorists that the site is for “xxxx holders only”. I clearly disagree on this as the signage in the car park clearly states “Parking for xxxx” of which the driver is an employee. (Please see photographic evidence submitted by CPP)


· Unlawful Penalty Charge

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park for a company slot of which the driver is a permanent Staff, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. The operator could have stated the letter as an invoice or donation for money, but chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and CouncilWardens issue.


· The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The £30 charge does not represent aloss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words, there was no breach to have happened; the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by POPLA itself in adjudication.The amount of the “penalty” imposed is completely disproportionate to any alleged “loss” by CPP. It is, therefore, punitive and contravenes the UnfairContract Terms Act 1997.

Secondly, I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) this is a company slot of which the driver in question belongs to. As such, the charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against the driver.

I also refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Courtdecision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC (EWCA Civ 186[2013]). This case determined the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. Itwas stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goodsor services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The Court ruling was ".. .that the monies that VCScollected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parkingservices." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have toprovide a VAT invoice. This provides a means of payment at the point of supply, and a means to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. No VAT is itemised on this PCN. It must, therefore, be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate their actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.


· CPP’s legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices.

In their correspondence with me, CPP have not produced any evidence to show that they have any proprietary interest in the xxxxxxxxxcar park on Sxxxxxxxx. Nor have they provided any evidence that they arelawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. They do not own the land, nor has any interest or assignment of title of the land in question; it is assumed that they are merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. I contend, therefore, that they do not have the necessary/required legal capacityto charge the driver of a vehicle for using the car park.

Hence, my request on CPP providing a full, up-to date, signed and dated contract or agreement with the landowner. A signed witness statement stating that someone has seen a contract is not sufficient. The contract must state that CPP are entitled to pursue these matters throughthe issue of PCNs and through the courts. This needs to be an actual copy andnot simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists. Also,the contract must identify the parties to it andcontain such information as necessary to authenticate its validity.


· Duration of Stay in the clearly allocated company slot Car park

CPP has failed to state the duration of which the said car was parked in xxxxxx. This is because the car was parked there for less than 20mins.

However, they have provided a photographic evidence of the said car parked in this car park but have refused to provide aphotographic evidence/time of when the NTK was pasted on the car as this wasafter the expiration of less than 20mins duration and ticket not placed on the locationof Contravention as driver had moved the car within the time. This is a calculated attempt of fraud and deceit.


· Trespass

Without a contract, the most appropriate offence would be of civil trespass. If this was the case, the remedy would be to award damages to CPP. Given that there was no damage to the car park during the less than 20 mins stay, the car park was not full when the said car entered or left and CPP do not own the car park as this is an already paid allocated slot to the driver’s company, I suggest that there was no loss to CPP at all.


· Unfair terms

Finally, I requestthat POPLA consider that the charge levied as an “unfair term” (and thereforenot binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at:

Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which havethe object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation".

Schedule 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes asignificant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract,to the detriment of the consumer"

Schedule 5(2) states: "A termshall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where ithas been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able toinfluence the substance of the term"."

Stroma

I gather it's the same ticket ?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4827550

Bueze

No this is a different ticket. This is the 2nd one I mentioned in the other thread. I am yet to get a POPLA code on the first one. Not sure why, as this came after the earlier one.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Well done on working that appeal , i would however remove the reference to the cost of the invoice as this will increase after a certain time , so best remove this.

Other than that it contains all the bits you need i think

Coupon-mad

· Lack of Unclear Signage


should be


· Lack of Clear Signage

Guys_Dad

I would add at the beginning No Contravention Occurred. Inform POPLA that where you parked on both occasions were spaces specifically for your company's use and put the PPC to strict proof to prove otherwise.

Enclose photographs proving your case. It would be good to break the monotony of GPEOL.

Under your GPEOL paragraph, you have not actually disputed that operational costs can not be attributable to your alleged contravention as these are part of the management contract they have with the landowner.

Bueze

Many thanks and really grateful to all to the constructive feedback given to me.


@Coupon-mad
I have changed it to "Lack of Clear Signage " as requested.

@ Guys Dad

See additional note below:


No Contravention Occurred


Firstly, I would like to state that no contravention occurred in the first instance as the bay parked in the photographic evidence given by CPP are one of the free bays/spaces specifically allocated for the company's use of which the driver is an employee and strongly put CPP to prove otherwise


Under my GPEOL paragraph, I have added the below at the beginning as advised:


The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contravention. In other words, there was no breach to have happened; this is a free car park and allocated company slot for employees to park. I strongly put it to CPP to provide a detailed financial appraisal/loss incurred stating the genuine pre-estimate of loss of income or damages in this particular car park for alleged contravention. I would also love to state that CPP cannot include their operational day-to-day running costs. This has been quoted by POPLA itself in adjudication. The amount of the “penalty” imposed is completely disproportionate to any alleged “loss” especially in a free company slot car park. It is, therefore, punitive and contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.


Could Experts in the house, kindly help me analyse and advise if it is ready to send in to POPLA or still make amendments please.


Many thanks to all.

Bueze

Thanks all, I will be putting my Popla appeal in the post and come back when I get a response. Many thanks and Merry xmas to you all

Bueze

Update on this ticket.

Massive thanks to all experts in the house that has contributed to advising me on how to go with this.

I got a mail from POPLA today with the highlighted comment "the operator has informed us that they have cancelled parkinh ticket number xxxx. Your appeal has therfore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjuudicator. You are not liable for the parking charge notice and where applicable amounts alread paid in respect of this parking charge will be refunded by the Operator"

I dont know what that means but all I know is ticket or supposed fake fine cancelled. Although no reason was stated. Very much appreciated members of this forumn for their time and constructive feedback.

I have one more ticket to go on another thread. I will update that as well when I get the positive news. Still awaiting a POPLA code on that, Sure it will be an easy win

Many thanks to Guy- Dad, Coupon Mad, Stroma.

Coupon-mad

So CPP threw in the towel as well, we are seeing more of this! Have a look at the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky thread (most recent posts at the end) and add your success as a link to this thread and a brief outline of the email. You will see another one threw in the towel only yesterday!