Parking Charge Notice at Freeport Braintree

Coupon-mad

The next step is easy.

On 7th January you were signposted to read the 'Newbies' thread - and 'How to win at POPLA' is right there in it. Choose a suitable 'ANPR Camera ticket' linked example and adapt it to suit.

noo.noo_4

bod1467 wrote: »

Possibly not. But this isn't how you'll beat them anyway. Check out the NEWBIES thread for advice. The basic process is:

Soft appeal to PPC (which will probably be rejected, so get a POPLA code. Advice and examples linked from NEWBIES)

Winning appeal to POPLA (with forum advice - post your draft here for advice)

Laugh at the PPC because they were stupid enough to try and scam you - instead YOU will have cost THEM £27 + VAT for the POPLA appeal.

Pls can you give me your opinions on this POPLA letter. ???

Cheers Neet
.........................................................................................

G24 CHARGE NOTICE £100. At Freeport Braintree
CAR PARK 14/12/2013, VEHICLE REG: E

---

R

This Notice is Dated 31/12/2013......Over 14 days from the parking date.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against 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. This notice arrived to late.

2. Notice to the keeper is not compliant.

3. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

4. 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.

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

6. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

7. This vehicle was parked for shopping & visit to Cineworld & food. (receipts for the film enclose/attached)

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, charges and ANPR cameras, 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.

Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client (e.g. ALDI land where they are not the landowner)
"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 flowiing 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.

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.
Cheers Neet

noo.noo_4

bod1467 wrote: »

Possibly not. But this isn't how you'll beat them anyway. Check out the NEWBIES thread for advice. The basic process is:

Soft appeal to PPC (which will probably be rejected, so get a POPLA code. Advice and examples linked from NEWBIES)

Winning appeal to POPLA (with forum advice - post your draft here for advice)

Laugh at the PPC because they were stupid enough to try and scam you - instead YOU will have cost THEM £27 + VAT for the POPLA appeal.

Pls can you give me your opinions on this POPLA letter. ???

Cheers Neet
.................................................. .......................................

G24 CHARGE NOTICE £100. At Freeport Braintree
CAR PARK 14/12/2013, VEHICLE REG: E

---

R

This Notice is Dated 31/12/2013......Over 14 days from the parking date.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against 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. This notice arrived to late.

2. Notice to the keeper is not compliant.

3. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

4. 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.

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

6. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

7. This vehicle was parked for shopping & visit to Cineworld & food. (receipts for the film enclose/attached)

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, charges and ANPR cameras, 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.

Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client (e.g. ALDI land where they are not the landowner)
"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 flowiing 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.

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.
Cheers Neet

Coupon-mad

No 'GPEOL' or 'no contract/standing' will win this for you so IMHO they should be points #1 and #2.

Your numbering at the top doesn't match the numbering of your paragraphs underneath, Also you have left in 'instructions' for using a template like this sentence which needs deleting:

'Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client (e.g. ALDI land where they are not the landowner)'

P.S. look, another poster is at your stage with G24 and you may like to compare POPLA appeals! The advice I just gave this poster also relates to your appeal above (e.g. you need an 'ANPR reliability' paragraph and the 'landowner contract' paragraph needs a stronger version - and I have shown that poster where to find both):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4856387

HTH

noo.noo_4

Thanks very much for you adivise. I will re do it. Yes you are totally right it need a lot changing. Pls can you tel me what "IMHO" is short for. Sorry I did not get that bit.

How about this for ANPR bit ?

" ANPR Accuracy
G24 Ltd are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require G24 Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it's vital that G24 Ltd produce evidence in response to these points "

Thanks

Umkomaas

IMHO - in my humble opinion.

noo.noo_4

Thanks very much.....5*

noo.noo_4

This is my proposed POPLA

Pls can you give me your opinion on this being a winning POPLA ? So to keep up your 100% winning these jokers.

G24 CHARGE NOTICE £100. At Freeport Braintree
CAR PARK 14/12/2013, VEHICLE REG: E

---

R

This Notice is Dated 31/12/2013......Over 14 days from the parking date.

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against 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. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

2. The signs 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.

3. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

4. No valid contract with landowner.

5. ANPR Accuracy

6. Notice to the keeper is not compliant.

7. This vehicle was parked for shopping & visit to Cineworld & food. (receipts for the film enclose/attached)

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

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.

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.

2. The signs at the car park was not compliant.

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.

3. 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, charges and ANPR cameras, 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.

Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client (e.g. Next ect where they are not the landowner)
"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.")

Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

Business Rates

As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by G24, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for G24, I do not believe that G24 has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I ask G24 to supply proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at Freeport Braintree car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

4. No valid contract with landowner.

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.

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.

I ask that G24 Ltd to supply proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location. With unredacted contract between the landowner and the G24 Ltd. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that G24 Ltd have containing nothing that G24 Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


5. ANPR Accuracy

G24 Ltd are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require G24 Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it's vital that G24 Ltd produce evidence in response to these points to POPLA to show that this has been carried out to the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

6. Notice to the keeper is not compliant.

This notice arrived to late.

The Notice is Dated 31/12/2013......Over 14 days from the parking date.

7. This vehicle was parked for shopping & visit to Cineworld & food.

(receipts for the film enclose/attached)


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

Registered Keepers name.

Coupon-mad

7. This vehicle was parked for shopping & visit to Cineworld & food. (receipts for the film enclose/attached)

That is not needed - don't waste your time as POPLA won't consider that. Sorry to bust your bubble that you need to justify yourself - you don't!

Your other points are based around a fairly old template. You can word those other paragraphs better from more recent templates and you don't need stuff about business rates nor Planning Permission which won't mean anything at all to POPLA unless you had dirt to dig in those respects, with proof. And you don't want waffle about 'witness statements and letters on headed notepaper' in this case.

This one is very recent and would just need MET changing to G24 throughout, and a check by you that it is all correct for your case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64527275#Comment_64527275

I expect G24 have failed to identify the creditor (as per that example) as well as sending the NTK too late for keeper liability. Your point about the NTK can be added to that paragraph about 'creditor' to show TWO flaws with your NTK.

noo.noo_4

Thanks very much for all of this.

I will read it all tho 2mrw as off to work soon.

Quick glance its got all i needed & I have changed it to G24 & added the late arrival bit as point 6.