Workplace permit - lost and got parking notice

drspouse

Thanks for the advice. Here is a draft response to CPP

PCN Number XXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration XXXX XXX
PCN Issue Date 09/12/2013

Dear CPP/Liberty,

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I have received your Notice to Keeper given on 21 January 2014.

All liability for the parking charge of £75 issued on 9 December 2013 is denied on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A staff permit was purchased for this vehicle, permitting it to be parked in any designated staff parking area. The permit was valid at the time therefore the loss incurred is nil. Your photographic evidence confirms the location as the staff parking area.

The employers refer to the £75 as a 'Penalty Fee'. An excessive sum that amounts to a penalty is proscribed by both the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the BPA Code of Practice.

2. CPP do not own the car park so you do not have the locus standi to pursue this matter, nor to have formed any contract with the driver.

3. The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'; nor does it identify the 'creditor' as required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, para.8. Accordingly, the Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012.

4. You use an unsupervised 'self ticketing' arrangement with security staff. The signage on site is unclear. I believe you have breached the BPA Code of Practice in respect of both issues.

5. It is it my belief that, if CPP do have a contract with the landowner it will contain the following or similar clauses which show your ticket to be wholly without merit:
(a) that CPP will pay the client a percentage from the 'revenue' of each PArking Charge Notice (PCN).
(b) that CPP will cancel a PCN issued for not displaying a permit, when shown a valid permit. The person that issued the PCN, as a member of security staff, can check whether a valid permit has been issued for a vehicle.

In view of the above I require CPP to cancel this PCN and the parking charge immediately. Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter, or provide a POPLA verification code.

If this matter is referred to POPLA you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and sight of your full unredacted contract with the landowner.

If you continue to pursue this matter I reserve my right to claim expenses from you, including the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees and my personal time. This list is not exhaustive.

Yours sincerely
Registered Keeper

drspouse

Letter from CPP today declining the appeal. But no POPLA code. They are trying to claim the RK is a 'third party' and they are trying to hide behind the DPA to extract the name of the driver.

Interestingly, they do offer another chance to pay the discounted fee.

I presume the RK now writes back telling them they appealed as registered keeper as is their right and insist on the POPLA code.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes you got it:), tell them you are complaining to the BPA on this point as the RK has the right like you say

Coupon-mad

I presume the RK now writes back telling them they appealed as registered keeper as is their right and insist on the POPLA code.

Yes and tell them you have reported them to the DVLA and BPA in the light of a recent reminder sent to all AOS members by the BPA, telling them yet again that to insist on the driver's details is a specific Code of Practice breach. This is sharp practice - clearly POFA2012 allows the registered keeper to appeal and the keeper is NOT a third party.

DVLA and BPA email addies are in the 'NEWBIES read this first' sticky thread, near the top of the forum.

fisherjim

Don't these scumbags make your blood boil!

They think they have all the trump cards; official looking notices/ticketing, scary looking letters, quoting laws and acts, using misleading quotes etc etc.

Then they have the gall to attempt to bend the very legislation and COP's that they are bound by, what an utter disgrace!:mad:

bod1467

In your reply tell them also that the invoice you'll present to them has increased further due to their gerrymandering and delaying tactics.

drspouse

Ok, it's POPLA time. CPP allegedly replied on 11th March - I say allegedly because the letter the RK has was in an email from the BPA (that said the request for driver details was not a breach because they changed their mind later and dealt with it. Or something to that effect.)

Anyhow, there is a POPLA code. So the RK has put together this response. It identifies me as the driver because you have to be a member of staff to buy a permit. But no address, so if CPP try pursing me that would be a DPA breach I think.

Comments please!

*********************
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I received a Notice to Keeper from Car Parking Partnership (CPP) on 21 January 2014 for a parking charge of £75 issued on 9 December 2013 for a breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle.
I have denied all liability to CPP. Following rejection of my submission I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. CPP have no proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
3. The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'.
4. The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor' as required under PoFA 2012.
5. The response times of CPP to my appeal breaches the time limits set out in the appeal procedure issued by the employer.

Detailed submission

1. The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A staff permit was purchased for this vehicle in September 2103 by the member of staff driving the car on the day of the incident. This permit allows parking in any designated staff car parking area during the period 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014. Photographic evidence supplied by CPP confirms the location as the staff parking area.

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that
'Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.'

In this instance, unpaid charges are nil as a permit for the vehicle was purchased well before the date of issue of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and was in force at that time.

The employer states that parking charge notices are 'enforced by Security staff supported by an external facilitator, Liberty Services. Photographic evidence is taken and sent directly to Liberty Services for processing. Security staff are not involved in the administration of taking payment of the CPNs.' It is it my belief that, if CPP do have a contract with the landowner, it will contain the following or similar clauses which show the parking charge to be wholly without merit:
(a) that CPP will pay their client a percentage from the 'revenue' of each PCN.
(b) that CPP will cancel a PCN issued for not displaying a permit, when shown a valid permit. The person that issued the PCN, as a member of security staff, can check whether a valid permit has been issued for a vehicle.

I therefore require CPP to submit evidence when calculating any administrative costs associated with issuing the PCN of their contract with the landowner that details how security staff are recompensed for their involvement. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between CPP and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.

I contend that this is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I request that my appeal be upheld and the parking charge cancelled.


2. CPP have no proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner. It is my belief that CPP have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, CPP must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges. I do not believe such a document is in existence. I therefore put CPP to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that as in 1. above a 'Witness Statement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information.


3. The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at 09.15 am on the day in question.


4. The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor' as required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, para.8. Accordingly, the Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012.


5. The response times of CPP to my appeal breaches the time limits stated by CPP as meeting the standards of the British Parking Association (BPA).

My initial appeal to the Notice to Keeper was made on 28 January 2014. The first response letter from CPP is dated 14 February 2014 (17 days after appeal), requesting driver details - in breach of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2102. Their subsequent acknowledgement is dated 21 February 2014 (24 days after appeal). This letter states that 'The standards of the British Parking Association (BPA) for Private Car Park operators, to which we subscribe, require that all appeals be acknowledged within 14 days of receipt and a response sent within 35 days of receipt'.

The letter from CPP rejecting my appeal is dated 11 March 2014 (42 days after appeal).

Consequently, the responses of CPP should be considered out of time and the parking charge invalidated.

Evidence
1. Parking permit for 2013-14
2. Confirmation of salary deduction under salary sacrifice scheme for Car Parking Option 1 - Standard Permit - Single Car Commuters
3. Car Parking Policy October 2013 ‐ September 2014
4. Notice to Keeper dated 17/01/2014
5 Letter from CPP requesting driver details dated 14/02/2014
6. Letter from CPP acknowledging my appeal dated 21/02/2014
7. Letter from CPP rejecting my appeal dated 11/03/2014

Stroma

You are going off on tangents in number 1 , sorry keep to the pre estimate of loss wording that you find on here. Number 3&4 should be combined, number 5 won't be considered. The evidence is not needed or reference to it

Coupon-mad

Looking good though once tidied up a bit as suggested by Stroma. You'll win at POPLA.

drspouse

Stroma, because this is a staff permit I was including evidence to show that one had been purchased through the staff scheme and was valid at the time the car was parked. Do you think this is not needed?

Version 2:

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I received a Notice to Keeper from Car Parking Partnership (CPP) on 21 January 2014 for a parking charge of £75 issued on 9 December 2013 for a breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle.
I have denied all liability to CPP. Following rejection of my submission I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. CPP have no contract with the driver nor a proprietary interest in the land.
3. The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking' and does not identify the 'creditor', as required under PoFA 2012.

Detailed submission

1. The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A staff permit was purchased for this vehicle in September 2013 by the member of staff driving the car on the day of the incident. This permit allows parking in any designated staff car parking area during the period 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014. Photographic evidence supplied by CPP confirms the location as the staff parking area.

The parking charge should compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges.

In this instance, unpaid charges are nil as a permit for the vehicle was purchased well before the date of issue of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and was in force at the time. Administrative costs associated with issuing the PCN may not include general business expenses.


2. CPP have no contract with the driver of the vehicle. The issue of a staff parking permit is a contract between the employer and staff member. It is my belief that CPP have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, CPP must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges. I do not believe such a document is in existence. I therefore put CPP to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information.


3. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is on two grounds:
(a) The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at 09.15 am on the day in question.
(b) The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor'.

In view of the above, I contend that this is an unenforceable penalty and request that my appeal be upheld and the parking charge cancelled.