PCN - Car Park Management

Coupon-mad

Yep do the appeal as the priority, use the template in the NEWBIES sticky thread, because it's written to 'flush out' charges that pretend to be 'contractual fees'. It asks them to explain the basis of the charge. You can add a point #4 that the NTK doesn't identify the creditor and so there is no keeper liability under POFA2012. And you could add to the signage point to say that white font on black is very unclear especially in the winter in bad weather or bad light.

The paperwork shows it's 'breach of contract/contravention' in fact. But beware, this was also the case and the sign was the same in lesnmandy's case and the assessor at POPLA missed the point and got the decision wrong because of that sign.

So when you get to POPLA stage, get lots of opinions from us to make it a humdinger.

For now, the appeal is easy so use the template, see what they say in reply as regards explaining the basis for the charge...contractual...they have got to be kidding!

I don't think this is a complaint for the BPA or DVLA as things seem to be as expected so far.

Bradden

Thanks.. I've used the template as suggested. I've added the bit about the NTK not identifying the creditor and the signage being black with white font.

I'll update you when I hear back from them.

Thanks again!

Bradden

I've had my appeal rejected.. two months later.

I've checked the POPLA code and it's valid.

I'll have a good read of the POPLA thread next.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Thanks

Bradden

I've had a good read about the POPLA process but cannot find any "template" to base it on.

From what I can gather than points I need to appeal on are the following:

I wish to appeal the charge notice on the following grounds:
1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.
2) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers.
3) There is no contract between the driver or keeper and CPM and therefore any demand for payment is illegal.
4) Signage is inadequate, misleading and unclear and is short of the standards required by the BPA code of practice, or the Department of Transport standards for road signs.

Is it as simple as going onto the website and filling this in.. is there anything I should add?

ColliesCarer

Those are the main points your POPLA appeal needs to contain but you need to expand on them further.

Also your no GPEOL point needs careful wording as the signs are trying to claim it's a contractual sum - it's not it is a disguised breach as the wording in the rejection letter confirms.

Take a look at post #3 of the NEWBIES thread and follow the link How to Win at POPLA for example appeals to base your own on.

You can also use the Search this forum function - use UKCPM as a search term to find examples from other posters dealing with the same company, such as this one

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4899567

Post up your draft for advice fine tuning before sending

Coupon-mad

Loads of example templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread if you click on the Hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA'

bye_bye_band_G

I know you guys help anybody who has received a private parking ticket, but quite honestly, this poster deserved one if anyone did!
He parked in a disabled bay when there were clearly other ones available. I often have a blue badge holder in my car, and it's a constant frustration to us when able-bodied people park in the disabled spaces. Even if there's another space available it means we have to walk further, which can be difficult and painful. Did he have more of a right to that space than us because of what he's decided was 'an urgent bathroom stop'?
Next time please leave that space for someone who really needs it. YOU DON'T.
The experts on here won't judge and will help you anyway because they want to see the PPCs defeated every time. Me - I hope you lose.

Bradden

Thanks for the judgemental post bye bye.. I fully agree that one shouldn't park in disabled bays. However that car park was virtually empty.. I would never deprive a disabled driver of a needed spot! Also I had an urgent medical need to use the bathroom as I was not well and therfore my priority at the time was getting to the bathroom as quickly as possible.. I would not have parked there otherwise. I doubt the parking company would make any allowance for this however so cannot use it in my defence.
Finally.. The fine is not to punish me.. No matter how much you may think I deserve it but to compensate for lost revenue. Do you think private companies should be allowed to fine individuals for breaking their rules? How about shopper using express tills with more than the permitted number of items and delaying those in the queue.. Should they be fined?

The_Deep

A charge of £1.50 for a debit card payment is a clear breach of recent legislation

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/cards/2013/04/credit-and-debit-card-fee-clampdown-begins

A complaint to your local Trading Standards officer is in order.

Bradden

Hi.. this is my first draft at an appeal.. (thanks to couponmad) I've done a fair bit of reading. As this is a CPM appeal I'm keen to get it right in light of the lesnmandy case,

Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper and this is my appeal:

1. Signs - no contract with Driver
See photos - it was dark & no signs were visible. There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed - so no contract exists. If it was self-ticketing I require proof that the ticketer was trained in the BPA CoP & an explanation of why no grace period was allowed and no signs were lit on site. In such conditions the BPA CoP does not allow ticketing.

Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear & so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it & agreed. The wording was unlit & unreadable. Even in daylight the terms are misleading, dress up the charge as a 'contractual' fee. It is not; see point 4.

2) No Locus Standi
This is a site 'agreement' limited to 'issuing tickets'. There is no assignment of rights to UKCPM to enable them to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor to form contracts with drivers.

I put CPM to strict proof of their signed/dated landowner contract & all the terms and restrictions and assignment of any rights in it. The contract must state that CPM can pursue drivers via court & show allrequirements of 7.1 and 7.2 of the BPA CoP (without which there is no authority). This needs to be a full copy and not a basic 'site agreement' template sheet or redacted contract. NB: I am not challenging the 'issuing of PCNs' (anyone can issue a PCN and this is not the matter under appeal).

3) NTK - no keeper liability
The NTK fails to identify the 'creditor', state a 'period of parking' or meet the requirements of POFA. It could be 'UKCPM' (or the landlord – I assume they are 'The Devere Group” – you have not stated who the lanslord is n )or 'CPM' or 'UK Car Park Management” all of which are mentioned on signs/letters/Notices, leading to uncertainty about who the creditor might be. Alternatively, the creditor could be the owner or lessee of the land, or a managing agent or CPM's client, or another party. It is not for me to guess who the creditor is.

It was an 'immediate' PCN - no Grace Period was allowed - breaching the BPA CoP. And omitting any 'period of parking' on a NTK breaches POFA 2012 and the NTK also fails to repeat all details from the PCN. Omitting wording from paragraph 8 of Schedule4 fails to create a complaint Notice to Keeper and there is therefore no 'keeper liability'.

4) Not a true contractual fee = breach of contract, requires a GPEOL
Although the operator states that the sum sought is a contractual term, the wording on the sign states ‘unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle receiving a PCN'. It is clear from this that breaching the specific conditions stated may result in a parking charge notice and therefore it appears that the amount sought is for those that are parked in breach. This amount would appear to represent liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

Also as the signs were not lit and I am merely the keeper (not driver) the terms cannot flow from the unlit/unseen sign but can only be interpreted from the Notice to Keeper - which again states the chargeis for 'breach'. UKCPM must show it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss & I contend there was no loss.

5) Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty
The sign & the NTK are ambiguous & contradictory. On the PCN & NTK the sum is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms' yet the (unlit) sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a payment mechanism & a VAT invoice. There is none. This is not a transparent contract & is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise under the doctrine of contra proferentem, the interpretation that favours the consumer applies.

The OFT on UTCCR 1999:
Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. A term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.




I’d like to add in a reference to the great quote from coupon mad.. not sure how I would add it with the appropriate legalese….

'The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking - as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park beyond the maximum permitted stay. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park beyond the maximum stay, provided he or she pay the charge. Clearly, permission to park ‘in breach’ is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine preestimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach. I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to park in return for the parking charge, and so it cannot be consideration.''

I’d also like to highlight the lack of proper signage at the entrance.. can you please help with the wording.

Also.. is it worth mentioning their £1.50 surcharge on paying by card?

Thank you all folks for helping me.. it's more complicated than I imagined when I got the ticket!