Read but still confused...!!

TalkGirl_uk

Thanks for your information so far, one hopefully quick question. I have just sold my car to my brother which obviously means once the V5 gets sorted he then becomes the registered keeper. Is this going to cause any further issues with my appeal? Do I need to highlight this or anything?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No its irrelevent

TalkGirl_uk

Okay so I have finished my first draft of my POPLA appeal. Please bare in mind I am now at the stage of re-editing the wording to ensure it reads smoothly. Obviously please let me know your thoughts (bits in bold are iffy bits i am likely to remove, change or add to).

Dear POPLA,

On the XXXXX, CP Plus issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system as having “…exceeded the free parking period, and [that] payment was not received for parking in excess of the free period.”

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
1) Signage does not comply with the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice
2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
3) A lack of the PPC’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner
4) The Parking Charge Notice fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

1) Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:
• Poor placement of entrance and specific parking terms signage
• Ineligibility of terms and conditions
• Inappropriate contrast and illumination of signs

Within the BPA Code of practice state that:
18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….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.”
18.2 “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”
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 their vehicle.”

Baring these sub-paragraphs of section 18 in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and CP Plus. When the driver arrived at the service area it was in the hours of darkness and therefore impossible to a read let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs on the service area are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible.

The initial entrance sign is located on the bend of two roads, at approximately 5 meters away from the road in an area that is not sufficiently illuminated. Furthermore, the next observable sign is located on the bend into the car park on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle and no obvious signs were located from where the car was parked to the entrance [Think about]. Considering these points it would have been difficult and potentially dangerous for the driver to see and read the contractual information when entering the service area and therefore at the time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied.

To further support the claims, the BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including that “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.” and that “…sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.”
Due to the fact that the sign is located on a bend approximately 5 meters back and in an area not covered by direct lighting or lighting from the car park then it would suggests that the terms and conditions of the contract would have been illegible to the driver at this time of night.

Based on these points, it is believed that CP Plus are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions and ensuring the appropriate illumination of signs. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. I therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner
The demand for a payment of £90 as noted within the Parking Charge is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. To offer further clarification the BPA Code of Practice, in section 19 Charges, and terms and conditions, states that:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge much be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.

In this case CP Plus has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £90 penalty charge is arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is in the Appellants position that CP Plus has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case, even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £90 charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespassing. By staying in the service area for an extra 39 minutes during one of the quietest times of the evening, highlights that there has been no loss to the Landowner.

To offer further support, in a recent email received from CP Plus (date 10/01/2014) it was further highlighted to the Appellant that the £90 being demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or landowner. In the received email it stated that “The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.”

Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:
19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract

Based on the information offered it would suggest that the figure being demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate loss earning due to the fact that operational costs, such as the installing and the maintenance of equipment should not be included. Therefore, without a genuine breakdown of the actual or pre-estimated costs, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge be dismissed.

3) A lack of the PPC’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner
Within the BPA Code of Practice, section 7 it highlights that:
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

It is believed that CP Plus have no contract with Landowner that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issues Parking Charge Notices. Therefore, I ask that strict proof be provided to POPLA and the Appellant to prove that CP Plus hold said contract with the Landowner for scrutiny.

4) The Parking Charge Notice fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
The final point raised within this appeal is that CP Plus failed to comply with paragraph 9 (2) (c) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that they failed to ”…describe the parking charges due from driver as at the end of that period.” Upon receiving the Parking Charge the document lacked any description detailing the parking charges owed from the alleged extended stay. The appellant feels that CP Plus have failed to clearly describe the charges that lead to the Parking Charge notice, thus highlighting that they have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt to recover any charges from the keeper.

Umkomaas

Presentationally, you need to have emboldened headings above each appeal section (coinciding with your bullet point introduction at the start of your appeal).

I'd place the 'Not GPEOL' appeal point as number 1. It's the major bullet in your armoury.

TalkGirl_uk

Have I not already done that? When I was writing it I took the numbered bullet points and had them as bold heading for each section. Not trying to be funny just want to get it right.

I will change the GPEOL and put it as number one

Umkomaas

Not showing as emboldened in your post #44 (see above). Maybe a copy & paste glitch?

TalkGirl_uk

I will have a look and re-edit



*All fixed*

Umkomaas

TalkGirl_uk wrote: »

I will have a look and re-edit

No need to re-edit here, just do it for your actual POPLA appeal.

Umkomaas

OK - looks a lot better.

TalkGirl_uk

Okay cool. Anything in terms of wording/content that needs changing?

Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it.