CPP - two parking notices

webmasterz

Hi all
Looking for some advice on my next action
I have yesterday received in the post Parking Notice - Notice to keeper x 2 from car parking partnership (In England and received within 59 days )
These are for two incidents on consecutive days where the vehicle was parked in the same space within a hospital car park yet CPP give two different reasons for issuing the tickets.
1. "parked in a parking space for a purpose other than the designated purpose of the parking space" Its a public parking space!
2. "not paid the appropriate car parking charges for the full duration of stay" Same space as parking for reason 1

It has been sometime since I previously received anything like this and I understand the legislation has changed and with CPP apparently being a member of BPA although I could not see them on the BPA list of members I understand my subsequent actions may be different?

Any advice gratefully accepted
Thanks
T

PS
I am considering towards a reply along the lines of the attached cribbed from here
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you with reference to Notice to Keeper number (insert reference number on Notice to Keeper) regarding alleged parking incident'a on (insert date) at (insert name of site and full address).
In order to take an informed decision on how to deal with the above-mentioned document I would like to request further information on this alleged incident and the alleged parking charges of £80.00ea

I would also like to receive all photographic evidence that you hold for these alleged incident's since you infer but have provided no image of the alleged evidence of the vehicle Parking Notice a) "Not paid the appropriate charges for the full duration of the stay" at date and time and Parking Notice b) "Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than the designated purpose of the parking place" at date and time
I do not expect to pay for this information as it would be disclosable in any future court proceedings.
I would be very grateful if you could send me evidence that besides your management duties within the car park, you also enjoy the rights of possession or occupation needed to be able to enter into an individual contract with drivers and to issue parking charge notices. I therefore require you to send me a copy of the contract that gives you authority to demand these payments together with the instructions that you have received from insert name of Hospital regarding the time limits and sanctions they wish to impose on their customers.
Further to the above, please explain fully on which of the following grounds your claim is based: trespass, breach of contract or contractually-agreed sum. Please note that if you are claiming that trespass was committed, I would like to receive a full breakdown of the actual loss suffered by your business or the landowner which could give rise to your claim for damages. If on the other hand you are claiming there was a breach of contract or a contractually-agreed sum, I would like to receive a copy of the contract which the driver allegedly entered into.

Please note that I do not wish to receive a standard template answer which fails to address the specific issues that I have raised with you.

I look forward to receiving your acknowledgement within 14 days and a comprehensive reply within 35 days (in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22.8). Only then will I be able to make an informed decision as to how I shall respond to your Notice to Keeper.

Yours sincerely,

Redx

this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822 tells you all you need to know, with suitable links too

Umkomaas

Forget all the questions - you're not going to get them answered. Just use Stroma's soft appeal which is short, to the point and aimed at hooking a POPLA verification code, which is all you can hope for at this stage. There's virtually no chance with your (above) appeal of even achieving that.

Here's the way to go:

Dear xxxxx

As the registered keeper of (reg) I'm in receipt of your parking invoice xxxxxx dated xxxxxx. I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to your company is denied on the following:

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

These points and others will be raised with POPLA should you not accept this appeal, and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and your full unredacted contract with the landowner.

If you do reject the challenge and insist on taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter, or forward a POPLA verification code.

And please follow, read and get to understand the links given by Redx above - the more you know, the greater your chance of success.

Coupon-mad

I agree with the above. You have used a VERY old template, which we recognise and don't recommend because it is worded 'In order to take an informed decision on how to deal with the above-mentioned document I would like to request further information' which is pointless and could be read as not being an appeal. You need your contact to be a clear 'appeal/challenge'.

Use the current versions in the NEWBIES sticky thread already linked.

webmasterz

Thanks for the words of wisdom I have had a read thro and will run with Stroma's soft appeal as above.
Couple of points
The dated part is this the Date the notice is given or the date of issue?
I assume I sign it as the registered keeper?
Thanks

Dear xxxxx

As the registered keeper of (reg) I'm in receipt of your parking invoice xxxxxx dated xxxxxx. I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to your company is denied on the following:

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass

These points and others will be raised with POPLA should you not accept this appeal, and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and your full unredacted contract with the landowner.

If you do reject the challenge and insist on taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter, or forward a POPLA verification code.

Umkomaas

webmasterz wrote: »

Thanks for the words of wisdom I have had a read thro and will run with Stroma's soft appeal as above.
Couple of points
The dated part is this the Date the notice is given or the date of issue?
I assume I sign it as the registered keeper?
Thanks

Date of issue of the NtK. Print name in block capitals, just a squiggle for a signature. Signed as the RK (but opening sentence of the appeal states this anyway). Do not indicate who might or might not have been driving - no need.

webmasterz

Well not surprisingly my appeal was rejected by CPP. However they did supply POPLA codes so if anyone would be kind enough to cast a constructive eye or two over the following it would be much appreciated


As stated above I received two of these on consecutive days, there are four linear bays at this site and apparently some of them are designated for drop off only though they are not specifically identified as such only by a sign on a wall. Hence one pcn is for Not paid the appropriate car parking charges for the full duration of stay and the other for “Parked in a place for a purpose other than the designated purpose of the parking place”
Should I use the same appeal below for both?
POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Car Parking Partnership.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Car Parking Partnership. requiring payment of a charge of £80 for the alleged breach of contractual terms of
PCN 1 Not paid the appropriate car parking charges for the full duration of stay
PCN 2 Parked in a place for a purpose other than the designated purpose of the parking place
. This issue date on the invoice is 2013.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (Charge is only £80 is this still a valid argument?)
2 No authority to levy charges
3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
4. Signage
5. Contract
6. Summary

1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
There are only approximately 4 parking spaces available at the given location. The demand for £80 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it exceeds the BPA Code of Practice
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. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.”
I require Car Parking Partnership to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2 No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.
Car Parking Partnership must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Car Parking Partnership to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put Car Parking Partnership to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that Car Parking Partnership produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner Car Parking Partnership.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Car Parking Partnership, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Car Parking Partnership or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4 Signage
Your contract to enter/park signage is only visible when entering the car park from Carlton Drive (30mph limit) in a westerly direction
The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned at a 45 degrees angle on a pole on the drivers side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car when approaching from the East alon Carlton Drive (30mph Limit). It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. I enclose photograph that demonstrate the entrance signage. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.
There is a secondary sign (photo B enclosed) which is visible when entering from the East which States this is a Pay & Display Car Park - Park in designated bays only. See pay machine for charges. and does not display the required "terms and conditions apply"
Neither signs display either the required "AOS roundel" or "who the site is managed by"

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.
A8.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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.”
I require Car Parking Partnership to provide proof of date of erection of all signage and proof of compliance of that signage with the BPA Code of Practice and BSI Standards.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

6. Contract
There is no contract between Car Parking Partnership and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

5. Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Coupon-mad

1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (Charge is only £80 is this still a valid argument?)

Oh yes - anything above a nominal £1 or so, cannot equate to any loss!

This needs changing to quote para8 instead of 9 if these were windscreen PCNs:

''and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 ''

and this should be added in somewhere to your signage paragraph as it's very relevant to say this:

'there are four linear bays at this site and apparently some of them are designated for drop off only though they are not specifically identified as such only by a sign on a wall.'

webmasterz

Coupon-mad thanks for taking the time to read and reply, edited accordingly

As stated above I received two of these on consecutive days, there are four linear bays at this site and apparently some of them are designated for drop off only though they are not specifically identified as such only by a sign on a wall. Hence one pcn is for Not paid the appropriate car parking charges for the full duration of stay and the other for “Parked in a place for a purpose other than the designated purpose of the parking place”
Should I use the same appeal below for both?
POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Car Parking Partnership.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Car Parking Partnership. requiring payment of a charge of £80 for the alleged breach of contractual terms of
PCN 1 Not paid the appropriate car parking charges for the full duration of stay
PCN 2 Parked in a place for a purpose other than the designated purpose of the parking place
. This issue date on the invoice is 2013.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (Charge is only £80 is this still a valid argument?)
2 No authority to levy charges
3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
4. Signage
5. Contract
6. Summary

1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
There are only approximately 4 parking spaces available at the given location. The demand for £80 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it exceeds the BPA Code of Practice
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. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the recommended amount in 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.”
I require Car Parking Partnership to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2 No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.
Car Parking Partnership must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Car Parking Partnership to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put Car Parking Partnership to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that Car Parking Partnership produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner Car Parking Partnership.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 8(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Car Parking Partnership, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Car Parking Partnership or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4 Signage
Your contract to enter/park signage is only visible when entering the car park from Carlton Drive (30mph limit) in a westerly direction
There are four linear bays at this site and apparently some of them are designated for drop off only though they are not specifically identified or marked as such only by a sign on a building wall.
The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned at a 45 degrees angle on a pole on the drivers side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car when approaching from the East along Carlton Drive (30mph Limit). It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. I enclose photograph A that demonstrate the entrance signage. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.
There is a secondary sign (photo B enclosed) which is visible when entering from the East which States this is a Pay & Display Car Park - Park in designated bays only. See pay machine for charges. and does not display the required "terms and conditions apply"
Neither signs display either the required "AOS roundel" or "who the site is managed by"

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.
A8.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. 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.”
I require Car Parking Partnership to provide proof of date of erection of all signage and proof of compliance of that signage with the BPA Code of Practice and BSI Standards.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

6. Contract
There is no contract between Car Parking Partnership and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

5. Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Coupon-mad

Yep just get rid of this:

(Charge is only £80 is this still a valid argument?)

And in paragraph 8 check if it is still (2)(h) - or even simpler, just say ' in regard to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. '

webmasterz

Both cases went to POPLA with the outcome

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number xxxxx

:j :beer: :j