parking charge notice at Hull port

Redx

seems ok to me , but missing T in there ?

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and here

also expanded point 5 doesnt have a line break separating it from 4 in both sections

check for other errors too please

thanks

Coupon-mad

I would get rid of the Planning Consent paragraph completely - as I have said before this would only work with POPLA if there was some dirt you had dug up to show there was no planning consent, or if you could show the PPC was imposing different rules than in the Council consent. Not all car parks even need planning consent for parking management - mostly that would be for a new development or retail park - and this is neither. And the Port Authority may well be the landowner too - so it seems to me to be wholly irrelevant in a POPLA appeal at this site. I don't even think that version appears in the 'How to win at POPLA' examples from the Newbies sticky thread, does it? Nothing about Planning Consent in the actual examples:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

And this is a PORT so this is crying out for a 'byelaws' template POPLA appeal unless the OP has already stated who was driving? There is no 'keeper liability' at a Port:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63447252#Comment_63447252

If the OP has already told the PPC who the driver was in the first appeal then that's a shame, but I feel the 'loss' point should be number one or two of the POPLA appeal points, either way. Like this version someone has just finished and is about to submit:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835874

And the OP here hasn't even yet stated something basic at the start, that the driver did pay and display. This needs to be personalised to the situation.

There's stuff in that template that needs removing as there's loads of repetition and stuff like 'This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre' which is so obviously a template appeal as this not a shopping centre but it is a Port (completely different car park)!

HTH - chop out the unnecessary stuff and tell us if you've already dropped yourself in it as to who was driving, or not? You'd have so much more to use, if not.

ZiggyStardust1

Your case is not dissimilar from mine, parkingfinemagnet, in that you're being harrassed by PPS for something beyond your control, having paid the requisite 14 quid for your 48 hour parking at the P&O terminal.

I presume you will have paid by debit/credit card, rather than feeding £14 in coins into the machine, so you've a bank statement proving this transaction (ours clearly showed £14.00 paid to Premier Parking Solutions Ltd on the date). This should also be submitted (other details redacted) as evidence to POPLA or whoever, as it's proof positive.

Moreover, I talked on the phone to the Regional Property Manager in Hull, of ABP Ltd, who lease the land to P&O, for a good 30 minutes and he confirmed to me in writing that they own the land there, after sending me schematics of the port & have confirmed in email that no contract exists with the pirates of PPS to levy speculative invoices on behalf of the landowner.

I started by emailing ABP from their website. This forum won't let me post a link.

And within 24 hours they got back to me on the phone. They are very helpful. P&O did not respond to 3 emails I sent them in this regard.

PPS again don't have a leg to stand on, furthering my pirate analogy. All they've got is the parrot......POPLA.

So a well-termed & precise POPLA appeal may well, & should work, following the advice these good people here provide you, but if not, I'll pm you copies of any relevant defence material I have carefully saved & categorised in my successful defence of a court case against this bunch of boneheads last month.

These goons won't win anything & will emerge very much out of pocket if they pursue it. Treat this matter as a fun sideline, don't worry in the least, as you will win & feel great satisfaction when you do, as I did, which makes it all worthwhile. Believe me.

curry44*

Hi I am in the same situation as parkingfinemagnet, I received a parking ticket from Hull P&O on 28/12/13. I only displayed the receipt part of the ticket (must have walked away from the machine without the actual ticket or it wasn't dispensed). I have appealed and been turned down on the grounds that the signage says both parts must be displayed. I paid the correct fee, parked correctly and displayed a receipt instead of a ticket. Should I cough up or do I have grounds to appeal? Would really appreciate some help as I feel really strongly that what this company is doing is daylight robbery.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Start your own thread, thats the only advice you will get until you do, rather then hijacking someone elses

SevenTowers

curry44* wrote: »

Should I cough up or do I have grounds to appeal? Would really appreciate some help as I feel really strongly that what this company is doing is daylight robbery.

Absolutely do NOT cough up.

Read this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81218

and if you want further advice do as Kirby says and start a new thread

curry44*

Thanks will do, sorry didn't realise i was "hijacking"!

parkingfinemagnet

Hi there to all the contributors to this forum, especially my case. I am extremely happy to let you know that my POPLA appeal was successful and I won't have to pay the PCN. You guys are amazing and have just saved me £100.
Just so you know I went with the letter that Redx approved at #21 of this thread.
Below is a copy of the verdict.
I'll be recommending you lot to my friends and family.
All the best and thanks again :beer:

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Operator’s case that a parking charge notice was correctly issued, giving the reason as: ‘No valid ticket or permit displayed’. The Operator submits that a parking charge is now due in accordance with the clearly displayed terms of parking.
It is the Appellant’s case that:
a) Neither the Operator nor the landowner has the appropriate planning permission for this land.
b) The Operator does not have sufficient authority from the landowner to issue parking charge notices in relation to this land.
c) Signage on site was insufficient, and so there was no contract formed between the parties.
d) The parking charge does not reflect a genuine pre0estimate of the loss caused by the alleged contravention.
e) The amount required for the day had been paid, and the ticket
displayed on the dashboard.
The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach.
In this case, I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking - as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park without a valid ticket. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park without a ticket, provided he or she pay the charge. In this case, the wording of the sign states that a parking charge notice would be issued, “If you park in this car park contravening the terms and conditions listed below”.
Clearly, permission to park without a ticket is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine preestimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach.
The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss.
I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made.
Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits. It seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated.
Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.
I need not decide any other issues.
:T

Redx

excellent news, please post it in the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread and add the name of the assessor too

well done

ziggy will be well pleased

SevenTowers

Well done! another victim saved from the clutches of a PPC!

I hope Curry is reading this..