Got caught out, need POPLA help

nathorpe

Evening all,

Got caught out with a parking fine in December and appealed it to the PPC, but didn't get anywhere. I've done my reading and hoped one of you helpful lot would have a look at the draft POPLA appeal I've put together and maybe give me a nudge in the right direction before I submit.

POPLA Reference Number: XXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXX
PPC: Norwich Traffic Control
PCN Ref: XXXXXX
Date and time of PCN: XXXXXX
Location: XXXXXX

I received an invoice from Norwich Traffic Control on XXXXXX, requiring payment of a charge of £100 for an alleged parking contravention.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 – Signage
2 – Conflicting information from staff
3 – Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4 – No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper


1 – Signage
While there are Charles Church signs indicating bays for “sales visitors”, no NTC signage was present to indicate that a penalty charge applied for parking in a restricted bay, nor that there were any bays which, under the NTC terms and conditions, were considered to be restricted.
The BPA Code of Practice states:
“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.”
Additionally, “...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.” Upon arrival at the site it was dark, and there was not sufficient illumination to enable the signs to be read clearly.

2 – Information from staff conflicts with wording of signage and wording on Notice
An NTC parking attendant had advised me on a previous occasion that parking in the bays marked for Charles Church “sales visitors” was allowed, in situations where all other parking bays were full. On arrival at the car park, all other parking bays were full.
When the ticket was issued, Charles Church staff in reception stated they believed that parking in sales visitor bays was permitted, had always been permitted, and were not aware of any change in policy to indicate that it was not permitted. In addition, if a change in policy is argued by the PPC, then there had not been any signage to advise car park users of this change.

3 – Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The PCN states that sales visitor bays are a restricted “for the purpose of retaining access”. However, the vehicle was parked on the site from 23:15 on Sunday XXXXXX, and the Notice was issued at 11:44 Monday XXXXXX. Below are the opening times of the Charles Church Marketing Suite (taken from XXXXXX)

Mon - 11.30am to 5.30pm
Tue - Closed
Wed - Closed
Thu - 10.30am to 5.30pm
Fri - 10.30am to 5.30pm
Sat - 10.30am to 5.30pm
Sun - 10.30am to 5.30pm

As the vehicle was only parked in a sales visitor bay for 14 minutes before the Notice was issued, it cannot be argued that the ticket is a genuine pre-estimate of loss for NTC or Charles Church.
Furthermore, the cost of parking on the site is that of a £1.00 permit which allows 10 visits, working out at £0.10p per visit. The payment charge is £100, which is 1000x the cost per visit.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 provides guidance for disproportionately high compensation.
“5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”

The demand for £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner or the PPC, and is an unenforceable penalty.

4 – No Creditor identified on the Notice
It is misleading not to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ and does not comply to paragraph 7(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. While the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Norwich Traffic Control, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be NTC or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice issued does not.


For the reasons detailed above, I would respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Any feedback (even "give up now and pay them!") greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Redx

I would say you missed contracts etc for a start

see this template https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

1) and 2) ?

nathorpe

That's great, thanks. I'll update it with some more about contracts with the landowner.

Any other thoughts / amendments?

spacey2012

Add that any costs produced by the operator are not actual losses but operation costs of running the business which were not affected by the visit of the keeper, they are the associated costs of running a business which are offset against taxable profit, there fore the charge is a penalty not a loss either estimated or actual..

nathorpe

What excellent wording - I love it, thanks!

Coupon-mad

Hang on:

- what does the NTC sign say about the charge and what does the NTK say?

- Are they alleging 'breach of terms' or 'failure to comply' or 'unauthorised parking'?

- Does the Notice allege 'keeper liability' and does it mention the POFA 2012?

- was the first PCN received by day 15?

nathorpe

The signs say that a charge may be incurred if (among other things) vehicles are parked outside of bays (such as in roadway or drive), but doesn't mention anything about there being restricted bays, or parking in restricted bays being a breach of the terms.
I've taken a picture of the sign that I'm going to submit as supporting evidence.

The notice states "your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking."

There's no mention of keeper liability or POFA.

And yes, unfortunately they were very quick to send out everything.

Coupon-mad

Just wanted to round off this thread to show newbies that this was won at POPLA:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64837846#Comment_64837846