parking charge notice at Hull port

ZiggyStardust1

trisontana wrote: »

But you still get stupid judges who come down on the side of these morons (from PPS's website):-

I would not place trust nor credence in ANYTHING PPS decide to get their carer (or website designer) to write on their site regarding their supposed 'victories' in Court. Nor in any letter sent to the victims of their ongoing scam. Just do a Google search on their principal director & check his somewhat, umm, chequered trading history, then take a view. This is all in the public domain.

Presumably the miscreant, whose hienous crime against PPS Ltd. was allegedly punished by a judge, had driven a JCB over several cars, trashed PPS's spurious signs & their flaky leased cash-collecting machines & then parked with one wheel over a white line in one of their managed sites. & failed to buy a ticket.

You'd have to go that far for any judge to find in their favour.

parkingfinemagnet

Hi again,
Here is my initial template for POPLA. Please let me know if I'm on the right lines or if I need to make adjustments in any way. Thanks

On 02/12/13 Premier Parking Solutions issued a parking charge notice of £100 because 'no valid ticket or permit was displayed'. I appeal on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge due to the 'parking charge' not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and I had paid the amount required to park and displayed my tickets on the dashboard as required.
The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner. The difference between the parking charge and the parking charge notice cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. In the appeal Premier Parking Solutions did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Premier Parking Solutions has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these expenses would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

A payment for parking was made for the time the vehicle was located in the parking bay, and both tickets were displayed on the dashboard after payment. Adverse weather conditions at the time may have caused 1 of the 2 tickets to have fallen from the dashboard, explaining the photographic evidence from Premier Parking Solutions. It is suggested that a sticker be provided on tickets (that most pay and display machines provide) to prevent this type of incident, or at least all information being on 1 ticket instead of 2. I have both tickets in my possession and attach them to this appeal letter as proof of payment.

Due to these reasons the ‘Parking Charge Notice’ should be politely dismissed.

Redx

that is mainly mitigation in my opinion, and gives popla no reason to dismiss based on their own rules (legal argument)

you need to include a lot of this too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

like no gpeol (included but lost in the paragraph) , no contract , poor signage , etc

make sure you have bullet points listed first, numbered, then expanded lower down

parkingfinemagnet

Thanks Redx. Should I include the details on poor signage (point 3) from that example? I didn't get a photo of how the signage looks currently and I'm concerned that this might not be valid on this occasion.

Redx

no , it may not be valid , or relevant, but thats not the point

the point is that when you query an item with popla, like gpeol, they make the PPC prove the point, and rule against them if they do not prove the point , blah blah

make it as hard as possible by making them prove everything they claim is correct, is correct !!

capiche ?

ie: prankster makes a PPC prove this like maps, then the PPC may give out the wrong map, or an illegible map, or one with no key code !!

parkingfinemagnet

I see. So if I use that particular template I'd only need to fill in the blanks and maybe add a few more bits from the first draft? Or shall I post the whole thing on here to make sure you're happy with it? Cheers

Redx

I am sure you are capable of adding your part into the template https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 as most of what you put can be added into the appropriate sections

you can also add any section of your own for mitigation , just do not deflect it from the usual winning points of no gpeol , no contract , and signage , making them prove each and every rebuttal or query

parkingfinemagnet

Many thanks Redx, and all the contributors. I'll get this sent off and let you know of the result.

The_Slithy_Tove

parkingfinemagnet wrote: »

Many thanks Redx, and all the contributors. I'll get this sent off and let you know of the result.

Please post your final draft for review before doing so. Your first draft is not strong enough, so it would be good for folk to be able to ckeck you've now got all the killer points in the appeal.

parkingfinemagnet

Ok here you go. Thanks.

On 02/12/13 Premier Parking Solutions issued a parking charge notice of £100 because 'no valid ticket or permit was displayed'.
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the 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. Neither the parking company nor their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. 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.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
5. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required.

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. 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 and charges planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease).
2. 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. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
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

3. 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

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/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. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. 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.

4. 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. 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 (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.
5. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required.
A payment for parking was made for the time the vehicle was located in the parking bay, and both tickets were displayed on the dashboard after payment. Adverse weather conditions at the time may have caused one of the 2 tickets to have fallen from the dashboard, explaining the photographic evidence from Premier Parking Solutions. I suggest that a sticker be provided on tickets (that many pay and display machines provide) to prevent this type of incident, or at least all information being on 1 ticket instead of 2. I have both tickets in my possession and attach them to this appeal letter as proof of payment.

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.