Parking charge notice is GPEOL likely to be case for appeal?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

You pay,appeal or ignore

You need no further guidance really, no point wasting more time

bod1467

Re. the Shrikansen case ... I believe that has been referred to the Lead Adjudicator, as this particular assessor has had a few cases where GPEOL has been wrongly discarded.

So as already said, draft your POPLA appeal and post it here for consideration. Or pay the reduced charge requested. Or ignore.

It's your choice.

bigtoe99

Thanks again to all who have helped wth this. Here is my draft POPLA appeal. Please advise on any amendments required.

POPLA Code: ##
Vehicle Reg: ##
PPC: #
PCN Ref: ##
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: ##
Date of PCN: ##

On ##/##/## I was sent a charge notice from # requiring payment of a charge of £100 for the alleged parking contravention with a reduction to £50 if paid within 15 days.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
2 Signage

1 No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:

"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."

In this case, the PPC ### has provided a calculation to show how the £100 figure is arrived at as follows:
Pre-POPLA loss estimation
DVLA look up £3.50
Postage and printing, back office cost per PCN £5
Labour cost for processing this notice (referring to the response to my initial appeal) and initial appeals £25
Under payment of parking £2
Total £35.50

Post POPLA loss estimation item
POPLA fee £27
Admin cost for subsequent appeals and appeals to POPLA £35

It is the Appellant's position that failure to comply with the PCP terms and conditions has not directly led to a loss of £100 by the PCP.

Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £100 parking charge does not represent losses incurred at the time the 'failure to comply' occurred.

It is argued that at the most the costs incurred at this time were as follows:
DVLA look up £3.50
Postage and printing, back office cost per PCN £5
Under payment of parking £2
Total £10.50 which is very different from the £100 charged.

Labour costs are part of running a business and therefore cannot be justifiably included as a component of the loss suffered. The costs associated with the POPLA appeal are business costs and are not associated with the initial alleged failure to comply with the terms and conditions.


2. Signage

The BPA Code of Practice states:

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your
permission does so under a licence or contract with you.
If they park without your permission this will usually be
an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land
will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the
driver should be made aware of from the start. You must
use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your
terms and conditions are.

18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”

There was no contract between the driver and ##. The driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

The signage was inadequate. The PPC claims that signs were positioned at the entrance of the car park but these were in small font with a large amount of text that could not be easily read whilst manoevering into the car park. Other than the entrance sign the company has failed to show that a sign was clearly visible at night from the position the car was parked and on the route from the car to the shops. In the driver's previous experience it is unusual to have to pay for parking when shopping at Tesco and therefore the driver was not expecting the car park to be 'pay and display'. The driver provides examples of Tesco car parks where payment is not required and receipts / bank statements to show that purchases were made.


I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Coupon-mad

This is POPLA appeal is not ready to send yet so spend some more time on it, especially as they are saying they are leaseholders.

Firstly, is this 'LCP' the same ones I linked in my first reply?

Secondly please show us both sides of the NTK because you have appealed only as keeper so far and there may be wording omissions which will mean they haven't established keeper liability. You should have enough posts by now to post picture (both sides).

Thirdly please confirm, the PCN was £110, then £50, then £30? An interesting take on 'loss'. But that paragraph will need some work and you will need other paragraphs I think.

Finally please tell us if this was ANPR (spy cameras) as it seems that way?


As for Farah Ahmad's decisions...words fail me...except she is not singing from the same hymn sheet as the other Assessors which makes POPLA inconsistent.

edward123

bob? wrote: »

Something is not right here.

mmmmmmm....ditto

ezerscrooge

As I understand it, the original higher charge has to be the Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. So the PPCs have to justify the £100, and none of them can.

The discounts etc having nothing to do with it. They must offer at least a 40% discount of prompt payment under the BPA code.

If they can only justify £35 as a GPEOL then the higher charge must be the £35, reduced to £21 for prompt payment.

What needs to be considered is that 99% of people pay up in the belief that they've been 'fined' . A GPEOL has been calculated (by others) to be about £10. Now these companies are not going to last long on that income basis.

So they keep scamming as 99% of people paying £60 is a lot higher than 100% paying £10.

So don't worry and bang in your POPLA appeal. The POPLA decision is only binding on the PPC.

bigtoe99

@coupon-mad
Thanks very much for your reply.
1) Yes they are the same ones you linked to in your original reply - LCP
2) I cant attach the NTK. I will try to send this as a private message. If anyone else would like to see it please let me know and I will send it if I can.
Wording re driver is as follows:
"PPC believes that a PCN is payable with respect to X vehicle for failure to comply with advertised terms and conditions within X car park. This notice is for non-payment which is supported by camera images of the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. A PCN of £100 is now due for payment and must be paid by the Driver before the end of 30 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the PCN is paid within 15 days the amount of the PCN will be reduced to £50."
3) PCN was £100, £50 if paid within 15 days. After initial soft appeal they have offered for me to pay £30 to settle the matter as a good will gesture.
4) Yes it was an ANPR

bigtoe99

@coupon-mad
ps have tried to PM but mailbox full. Can't find any way to get NTK on here. Help please!

Redx

a redacted copy of the NTK can be put on photobucket or similar websites and then linked from here using a non-live link

Coupon-mad

I will clear a gap or two shortly in my inbox if bigtoe needs to send me the NTK (both sides please) as I'd like to think we can find some missing wording which makes it a nullity for keeper liability. I can't look at links at work though so will look later!

This wording 'for failure to comply with advertised terms and conditions within X car park' is useful from the NTK but the signage wasn't so helpful, so you will need some careful wording just in case Farah Ahmed gets hold of it (the POPLA Assessor who seems to miss the point about no GPEOL - if she even exists and isn't a pseudonym for any rejections!).

The fact the 'loss' has magically changed from £100 to £30 is very useful and needs to be worked in to prove 'no pre-estimate of loss' (how could it be if they'll accept £30?!).