Ethical Parking Management Fine - HELP

Coupon-mad

I think once you get to 15 posts you might find you can start posting working links, which we tell people all the time. Presumably that is made clear for newbies when you register? Also if you read other threads by newbies they get round this all the time by simply posting a broken link (removing the http://). Sounds like the signage is good for your case - because it alleges the charge is for 'breach' and failure to comply' which means they will lose on 'no GPEOL' at POPLA.*




*(all acronyms are explained in the NEWBIES thread second top of the forum).

londonerryan

Hi.

I won't repeat what happened in the case as all the information is in previous comments. But if anyone wants me to repeat anything i can.

My father (owner of car) received two replies (for both CBC's received) from Ethical Parking Management at 6pm on the 29/04/14.

The appeal was sent to them on 14/02/14 so they have taken 10 weeks to reply.

They have basically said:

"Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking".

"We are therefore unable to cancel the Contractual Breach Charge as it was issued correctly. You must now make payment of £80."

That is £80 for both charges.

My questions for you are:

1. I think i read on a thread that the parking company must reply within 4 weeks with a Popla Code as that is law. Is this true? If so, haven't they broken this law by taking 10 weeks to reply to me?

2. Their car park signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice as they have no mention of Ethical Parking Management. I was told this before. Is this a good thing for my appeal to Popla?

3. What evidence should i send Popla? I have photo proof of the college car park signs, my pay and display ticket from the machine on 17th January (my SECOND CBC), and the appeal letter i sent to EPM.

4. What steps do i take now? Immediate appeal to Popla i presume.

Umkomaas

The PPC has 35 days to deal with your appeals. They haven't broken any law, but they have failed to comply with the BPA Code of practice - so a sharp complaint should be made to the BPA (addy in NEWBIES sticky).

But don't await a reply to your complaint as your main task, which is definitely time-limited on you, is to get your POPLA appeals done. DO NOT miss the time limits on these.

You need to do 2 separate appeals, one for each PCN.

You can send with your appeal copy of any 'evidence', but to be honest, POPLA is unlikely to be swayed much by it (I don't think I've seen any appeal that has turned on submitted 'evidence'). The key point in both your appeals is 'no GPEOL'. Correctly formulated paragraphs on this have never failed to win.

These are the main points to build in to your appeal:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
4. No proprietary interest in the land
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy

You will find good examples of how to phrase the above points via post #3 in the NEWBIES sticky.

You say you have photos of the signage? You need to obviously have a 'signage' appeal point, but initially you make the statement that the signage is insufficient to form a contract with the driver. No need to send anything with it, as it is up to the PPC to prove that the signage does comply with the BPA CoP and can form a contract with the driver - and they can mess up spectacularly on this.

Save your photo evidence of the signs until you see the PPC response to this - you will get a copy of their response to your appeal, and if your photo then disproves what they are saying, that's the time to pull the rabbit out of the hat as you are able to submit additional evidence to POPLA at that stage.

Post your draft POPLA appeal here for fine tuning advice. If the parking events were identical, there's no need to draft two quite different appeals, the same one will do BUT you must submit it twice with separate cross-references to your respective POPLA codes. Even if the parking events were quite different, your base points (1-6 above) will be more-or-less the same.

HTH

londonerryan

Hi everyone.

I'm currently formulating my appeal to Popla. It would have been done already but i have had so much work this month.

One question:

ANPR... I was told to make a point against ANPR, as have many other people on threads. I googled it and understand it something about cameras.

I can't be certain there are cameras in the car park where i received the parking ticket. Should i leave this one off the appeal?

da_rule

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is a system, which uses cameras as you say. It takes a picture of your vehicle entering and leaving the site. It is able to read the number plate. The software can then check the number plate against various databases (such as permit holders) and the time stamps from the photographs can also then be used to work out how long you've been on site (for when there are claims for overstaying etc).

There are BPA guidelines about how ANPR must be used and maintained. It is worth including, as at the very least it will cause an inconvenience to the parking company to have to produce the evidence that it has been properly maintained/calibrated.

londonerryan

HOW DOES THIS APPEAL SOUND? THANKS TO THE MANY THREADS I HAVE LOOKED THROUGH.

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below. I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's
4. Unlawful penalty charge

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss - The Amount of £80 demanded by Ethical Parking Management is not 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. As parking in this car park costs 50p for the whole day, the amount of £80 demanded from Ethical Parking Management is extortionate. I request Ethical Parking Management to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of £80. Such a high demand is punitive and has an element of profit included that is not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

The parking company may decide to include day to day running costs of the business (for example wages, uniforms, signage, maintenance costs) but these would have occurred had there been a breach or not and therefore may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.

Given that Ethical Parking Management charge the same lump sum however long the overstay, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention, it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage - Signage in this car park does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. It does not state to whom one would form a contract and therefore Ethical Parking Management have failed to form a contract with the driver. The only 'name' on the signage is that of the college who do not govern the car park. No contract has been agreed.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's - Ethical Parking Management do not own this car park and are merely agents of the landowner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters Ethical Parking Management have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Ethical Parking Management must prove to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to form contracts with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7. Written authorisation of the landowner
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.

4. Unlawful penalty charge - Since there is no demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a car park which usually costs 50p per day, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extortion by using an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. Ethical Parking Management could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, yet they choose to word it as a 'Contractual Breach Charge' in an attempt for it to be deemed as a official parking fine such as the ones issued by the Police and local authorities.

This concludes my appeal. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Ethical Parking Management fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Send it NOW. It's fine, send it electronically to POPLA tonight. You are almost out of time as you said the rejection was received on 29/04/14!

You may like to check the expiry date if you dare, using the POPLA code checker in the NEWBIES thread.

londonerryan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Send it NOW. It's fine, send it electronically to POPLA tonight. You are almost out of time as you said the rejection was received on 29/04/14!

You may like to check the expiry date if you dare, using the POPLA code checker in the NEWBIES thread.

Yeah, i checked and it said i have until 27/05/14.

One thing: I just drove the the car park.... there is no ANPR or CCTV of any sort. Should i just remove that part from the appeal?

Need i add anything else?

Coupon-mad

Never mind looking for ANPR cameras, think about it! You can tell if it was an ANPR ticket or not - if it was a PCN on the windscreen then it wasn't a camera one by post!

londonerryan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Never mind looking for ANPR cameras, think about it! You can tell if it was an ANPR ticket or not - if it was a PCN on the windscreen then it wasn't a camera one by post!

True!

One final thing....

I am appealing two tickets, for two separate days.

One where the driver did purchase a pay and display ticket and one where the driver didn't.

- Day 1: Walked in... walked out... found PCN on windscreen.

Oops, hadn't bought a new parking permit for new term.

- Day 2: Walked in... bought pay and display ticket... placed in car ... bought term parking permit... walked out 3 hours later... found PCN on windscreen.

Oops, was meant to go back to car and place permit in car immediately, regardless of paying the 50p for a day's parking.

Should i word the two appeals slightly differently to make a point of the separate mistakes?