parking charge notice

treehuggerss

ok many thanks Redx, i have researched and read dozens of threads and have read and modified a previous successful thread and popla win at the Vinci car park in question - for exactly the same issue - ticket blown over. i would be very grateful if you could take a look at the draft response and advise accordingly. the main letter i looked at must have had more info from vinci....as they respond to their speculative claim which i assume vinci must have listed a load of costs to justify the £100, which was subsequently rejected. To date vinci have simply emailed me their standard 'we reject letter', as ticket was upside down.
Vinci has not written to me by post, nor has my postal details, so i am making a popla appeal well inside the 14 day lesser charge time period

Dear Sirs
Re:- POPLA Appeals Submission - Code: xxxxxxxxxxx
Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

With regards to the request for payment of either £50 or £100 for breach code 01 - parking without displaying a valid payment. The smaller sum is listed as this appeal is made well within the specified 14 day period. The amount claimed by PCOMPANY XXX is liquidated damages and, as such, the Operator may only charge a genuine pre-estimate of loss that arise from the alleged contravention. There is no such loss to any party as a valid ticket was purchased and the vehicle exited the car park well before the ticket expiration time.

The purchased, valid ticket was displayed on the dashboard and may have blown over so that the side of the paper with the time printed on it was no longer facing the windscreen; however the serial number is clearly displayed and the valid ticket was supplied to the Parking Company as evidence of a valid ticket being displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle.

The Operator appears to have included a basket of costs, including the cost of erecting site signage and the cost of membership of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, wages and uniforms which are Operational costs of running the business.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. However, some of the surmised costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same.

1. CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
PCOMPANY XXX do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents; with both Land Securities and St Davids Partnership Ltd involved in land holding of the site. PCOMPANY XXX has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). UKPC has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require PCOMPANY XXX to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner (not just a signed slip of paper from someone) because even if one exists, I say it does not specifically enable PCOMPANY XXX to pursue parking charges in the courts. This would not be compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

"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 re-visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were not positioned well enough for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park, especially from the very busy ‘right turn’ junction with the traffic lights opposite the Atrium building. 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 following 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.

In attempting to claim £100, the parking company has de facto 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.

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.

I contend, therefore, that you should allow the appeal on these grounds.

I would be obliged if you could kindly acknowledge receipt of this appeal.

Regards

Redx

I dont understand the 14 day period etc as you have 28 days from the date of the code to submit a popla appeal, any other time periods are normally about payments to the PPC not popla

if you have a popla code from vinci then they must have your postal details etc when they issued it

so I am totally confused on this

but the rest of your appeal looks ok to me, assuming you have written the correct details like the car park in etc , make sure those landowner details are correct, or that its the same car park in which case they must be

you have not bullet pointed it at the begining of the larger issues , like the example I showed you and I mentioned bullet points previously

so copy and paste you bullet points 1 to 4 or more just before the larger explanations, so the assessor can see than in one glance

treehuggerss

hi. i got the PCN on 31 December and emailed vinci a few days ago. they emailed back today. i have never given them my address and they do not have it. that is the 14 day period i was referring to ie they said £100 or £50 if paid within 14 days. Their email to me today contained the popla form as an email attachment, nothing by post. i will adjust the letter and include the correct info. i will submit the appeal to popla online on their website. many thanks indeed and i will keep you posted.

Redx

normally the advice is to wait for the NTK, so you appear to have responded as driver to a windscreen notice

anyway, if you do as I said and it more or less matches a winning appeal, send it to popla - yes

thanks

4consumerrights

1. CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
PCOMPANY XXX do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents; with both Land Securities and St Davids Partnership [STRIKE]Ltd [/STRIKE]involved in land holding of the site. PCOMPANY XXX has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to offer parking spaces, allege breach of contract or enforce parking charges (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012).[STRIKE] UKPC[/STRIKE] PCOMPANY has no proprietary interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

Hi:

You have copied and pasted another appeal which has left in the name of a different PPC - UKPC - parts in red and strike through to be corrected here.

I would also check you have the right landowner here as St David's partnerhip with Land Securities refers to the St David's Dewi Sant retail park which is Mary Anne Street - they handle all their own car parking.

Adam Street is a completely different car park - nearer the University (my daughter graduated at Cardiff this year)

Redx

glad you spotted that, I did mention that the OP check that its the same car park etc

thats the problem when copying and pasting from other appeals, you have to double check these things

overall, should win at popla though

Coupon-mad

No need to put a postal address on your POPLA appeal then! If you submit it electronically on the POPLA website does it insist on a postal address or can you just opt for a decision by email. If so, I would. That appeal is fine by the way, will win sometime in February.

treehuggerss

Thanks guys. I separately mailed land securities and they replied pointing to a POPLA appeal, but they copied a person in Vinci car parks, therefore I presume there is some connection..
The online POPLA requests postal address. An insured driver who drives that vehicle on a regular basis
was also in my car and I have not stated whether I personally was the actual driver on that date.....I am the registered keeper....
Thanks again

treehuggerss

popla under way. rec'd so-called evidence pack from Vinci; contains the usual stuff - photos of their signs and their claim that their speculative charge is a genuine claim for their loss - citing signage, uniforms for their guards blah blah, garbage.

Coupon-mad

You will win then. They already had to pay for uniforms and signs even if no-one ever fell into their trap!