Opinions on appeal letter please

Coupon-mad

Jimin wrote: »

I do have photos showing that the signage is inadequate. The signs are small and posted away from the actual parking area. This and the unfair penalty seem to be the only grounds on which I stand any chance of winning...

You've still got the wrong words, it seems to me - don't say stuff like 'unfair penalty' on it's own, nor anything about 'cost', it's NO LOSS you need to talk about as there is a difference and POPLA are looking for stuff like 'no GPEOL' and 'no standing/authority from the landowner' which will win most cases. You'll see those paragraphs in the 'How to win at POPLA' examples, plus always 'inadequate signs not forming a contract with the driver' (in those words). Plus breach of Equality Act 2010 with details (even though that won't actually swing it at POPLA).

Jimin

Great stuff, many thanks. I'll draft it over the weekend.

Jimin

Hi all

Time's a ticking, so here is my draft appeal to be sent today, along with photos of the woeful signage.

Any thoughts please?


Dear Popla

I am the registered keeper of vehicle number xxx, and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against Contractual Breach Charge number xxx on the following grounds:

1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The £100 charge far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the car park is free to use.
In the appeal Ethical Parking Management have not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Ethical Parking Management has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

The Signage does not comply with BPA regulations.

The sign at the entrance to the car park is on the right hand side, away from any driver (who would be occupied with looking to their left for cyclists heading down the cycle path they are crossing) and is obscured by bushes.

The signs inside Philip Court are placed around the perimeter of the pedestrian border of the car park, a considerable distance from where cars actually stop, consequently they are as good as invisible to any driver.
No contract can be deemed to have been agreed where one party is unaware of said contract. As the signs are deliberately placed where they are very difficult to see it is reasonable to argue that, for this reason, the contract is void. Please see the attached photos.

Proprietary Interest

The registered keeper does not believe that Ethical Parking Management have demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Ethical Parking Management any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Ethical Parking Management’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue Contractual Breach Charges (CBCs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Ethical Parking Management. The registered keeper expects Ethical Parking Management to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

Jimin

Hello everyone

Just to say, the appeal was allowed on the grounds that 'the operator did not produce any evidence to justify the charge as having been a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

I'll post the full letter in the relevant forum.

Thanks everyone for assistance, much gratitude.

The fact that the car park was permit only, not pay and display, seemed to swing it. The permits are free, so there was no loss to the operator. Apart from the £27 they have to stump up to Popla for the appeal, that is

Jim

Umkomaas

Nice short, sharp appeal which has worked and is perhaps proof that we no longer need the very lengthy, chuck the kitchen sink and as many legal case citations (which most who throw them in have little idea what they mean/prove) as possible at the adjudicator.

Well done OP.

Jimin

Thanks Umkomass.

The Eureka! moment was when I realised that parking was free.

What's depressing is that this means ALL tickets issued by these people are unenforceable, only you HAVE to appeal and if you don't get the wording right, you lose.

To whom can I complain?

Coupon-mad

Your MP, the DVLA, the BPA, Trading Standards, Watchdog, telling them that, as this PPC's charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss then they have no reasonable cause to obtain keeper data and are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice.

You'll get nowhere but the complaint to your MP is always a good idea to raise the subject in their mind so they might learn about the modus operandi of this so-called 'ethical' bunch and others just like them. These firms carry out a practice akin to a protection racket, day in day out across the UK and are a pariah, leaching off the back of real businesses and bleeding their customers dry.

Keep an eye on this forum as we are waiting for a test case decision in court against ParkingEye which might be interesting and relevant to anyone with a fake PCN from any private firm.