p4parking advice please

sid49

Hi all,

Over the new year period we visited our daughter who lives in a gated residence near london, parking is controlled by a concierge system where you are issued a 24hr pass which has to be renewed for each consecutive period. we did this for 4 days but on the second day we didn't display the new pass in time, consequently we were issued a ticket by p4parking when they came on site that evening. We have asked them to revoke the ticket as we had the permit but it wasn't on display and they have refused and said the ticket stands.

There are no signs up to say that p4parking will issue tickets anywhere, it does say that it is controlled parking but you would assume this means that you have to have a permit issued by the concierge ( you can't get in the place without seeing them first).

Do i have a case to take the appeal to popla or should i just pay the £60? in there reply to my initial appeal they gave me a case number for popla.

thanks in advance

wayne

peter_the_piper

definite appeal to P4 and take them to popla when they reject it., the normal GPEOL and no signs would see them off. Can't ever see the point with ppc's in a controlled/gated parking area(except to make money for someone that is)

Coupon-mad

sid49 wrote: »

Hi all,

Over the new year period we visited our daughter who lives in a gated residence near london, parking is controlled by a concierge system where you are issued a 24hr pass which has to be renewed for each consecutive period. we did this for 4 days but on the second day we didn't display the new pass in time, consequently we were issued a ticket by p4parking when they came on site that evening. We have asked them to revoke the ticket as we had the permit but it wasn't on display and they have refused and said the ticket stands.

There are no signs up to say that p4parking will issue tickets anywhere, it does say that it is controlled parking but you would assume this means that you have to have a permit issued by the concierge ( you can't get in the place without seeing them first).

Do i have a case to take the appeal to popla or should i just pay the £60? in there reply to my initial appeal they gave me a case number for popla.

Everyone has a case and will beat P4Parking at POPLA with the right wording, no worries. But you'd lose if you write about the permit, so don't rely on that at all.

Here's an example from pepipoo where the poster read forum advice (such as the info in the 'Newbies please read this first!' thread on here) and came up with a winning appeal which they have linked:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=85391

HTH, do show us your draft if unsure after seeing that one and after reading the 'Newbies please read this first!' thread. DO NOT PAY!!

sid49

/Users/sidtaylor949/Desktop/IMG_0731.jpg

/Users/sidtaylor949/Desktop/IMG_1754.JPG


Hi coupon mad and peter thanks for the advice and link to one of the successful appeals, this is what i have so far for popla will this be sufficient to win?

On 30/12/2013at Queen Marys Gate P4Parking issued a parking charge notice (PCN) claiming a parking contravention had occurred a copy of the PCN is attached.

My Appeal
1. The BPA Code of Practice states, under appendix B, entrance signage:
“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”
Signs in this residential area are non compliant with this code of practice: I did not see any notice displayed at the entrance to the residential area on the day of my visit. Also, signage in streets is not easily visible, being small set back and attached to the walls of the flats past grassed areas.

The sign that is attached to the entrance to the side of road stating at point 5 that 24 hour parking control is in operation. No vehicle is allowed into the complex without having a permit issued by the concierge gatehouse Which constitutes the 24 hour controlled parking.

I require P4Parking to provide POPLA with evidence that signage is compliant with BPA rules upon both entry and where the car in question was parked.

2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by P4Parking and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because P4Parking have alleged a contravention of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee). Since the car parking in question is free to use then the charge is certainly excessive, since there are no losses to the landowner. The only losses that may be applied are those of the Landowner.
The demand for a payment of £100 (reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days) as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:!

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!
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that!
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually!
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or!
unreasonable


I require P4Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.

3 Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
P4Parking lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put P4Parking to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

I assert that, for the reasons stated above, no “relevant obligation” has been created, and that the parking charge would not be recoverable by the Operator under common civil law. I therefore invite the Adjudicator to allow the appeal.
Should you require further information, please let me know.

Coupon-mad

Nope that is not enough yet; you need the usual points as in 'How to win at POPLA' in post #3 of the 'NEWBIES read this first!' sticky thread. You have missed out loads and even your section about loss doesn't use the usual magic words.

And you need to change this: ''to say that P4Parking will issue penalty charge notices'' because it most certainly is NOT a penalty charge notice.

sid49

Hi coupan-mad I've added more does it sound any better, not sure what the magic words are thats missing and certainly don't want to blow this.

regards

wayne

Redx

maybe you havent studied the other successful appeals enough ?
like this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

note it has each section with a header at the top of it
those headers are also reproduced at the start so that each section can be easily read and uses numbering to get to the factual parts

so short bullet point sections , all numbered
followed by expanded paragraphs containing the magic bullets like not a gpeol , signage , contracts etc , each with their own section headers mirroring the bullet points , so the assessor can find them all easily (you dont want it all buried away where they may miss them)

Coupon-mad

sid49 wrote: »

Hi coupan-mad I've added more does it sound any better, not sure what the magic words are thats missing and certainly don't want to blow this.

regards
wayne

Hi Wayne, that is better. You have some good stuff there now including the landowner contract and quotes about 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss'. Have you also got photos to prove no entrance sign, no other signs? I couldn't see the links you posted (if they were links) as I think you'd need to host them on photobucket or tinypic first, in order to show them here and probably to attach to a POPLA appeal too, online.

I think from what you are describing as a site with little or NO signage, that some attached photos of the car park would help your appeal at POPLA. You might even be one who wins on a lack of signage issue - which does happen but isn't the usual winner.