Wether just to pay or not?

4consumerrights

It would have been helpful if the OP kept to his first thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4869975

When did you receive the POPLA code and how long have you got left to submit your appeal.

Why give up now and just pay - when this can easily be quashed at POPLA and as others have said it is NOT a fine. A quick look at some appeals and job done - you have even been provided with a good basis for an appeal on this thread.


You need to include wording to include - but expand upon.....

the fact that no contract was made with the driver due to inadequate unlit signage for the time the parking charge was issued and that as most of the retailers were closed there was no loss of income to the landowners in question.

Which car park was this btw - the one behind Aldi?

Coupon-mad

Barnton_1982 wrote: »

I live in England, it was issued by Euro Car Parks.
I don't really want to pay the £50, just don't want to end up with a £90 fine in a month or so for it getting rejected.
Thanks for all your replies!

Well that would be odd - how do you think an unwarranted and easily dealt with invoice from a chancer, can morph into a fine?!

ezerscrooge

If I put a sign up on the pavement outside your house stating

"anyone who walks on the cracks in the pavement will be charged £50" then I stick a ticket to your chest demanding that money when you step out of your house, would you pay up?

Of course not. You'd tell me where to go.

Then I tell you that the signage is quite clear - would you pay up then? Of course not, you'd call the Police to get rid of me.

And that is the effect that your well crafted POPLA appeal will have on ECP. It will get rid of them and you'll not be paying anything.

Barnton_1982

Ok I'm not going to pay, and I know it's not a fine!!!
I've drafted a letter so hopefully that will work.
It was the one behind aldi

Hot_Bring

Barnton_1982 wrote: »

Ok I'm not going to pay, and I know it's not a fine!!!
I've drafted a letter so hopefully that will work.
It was the one behind aldi

When you say "drafted a letter" do you actually mean a POPLA appeal ? If so then you should post it here BEFORE sending it.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes post it up before you even t youhink of posting it of to popla. If it's mitigation based forget it. We can tell you wheather its ready or not

Barnton_1982

Ok will do when I get chance, it's along the lines of the template ezerscrooge posted above just changed some details and bits of pieces.
To be honest if I hadn't read this forum I would've just gone ahead and paid so if this works I owe you all a big thanks!

Hot_Bring

Barnton_1982 wrote: »

Ok will do when I get chance, it's along the lines of the template ezerscrooge posted above just changed some details and bits of pieces.
To be honest if I hadn't read this forum I would've just gone ahead and paid so if this works I owe you all a big thanks!

Using a template is all well and good BUT it requires you to ensure you understand what you are saying. It's no good just replacing the relevant details with your details.

As for the template you plan to use - it's OK but point 4 about business rates / taxes is utterly pointless. Don't use this point.

Barnton_1982

Don't worry I'm not just gonna send that off!!!
Of course I've taken bits out and added bits that are relevant to my situation.

Barnton_1982

Having read the template posted above, and taken point 4 out as advised, is there anything else to add to this POPLA appeal letter. I've added a short paragraph which might come under 'mitigating circumstances' and not be relevant but no harm in putting it in surely? I do feel it's best sticking to a template from this forum and amending details as I don't want to stray too far from the tried and tested appeals. I don't want to add too much as I did overstay in the first place

Car Reg : xxxxx
Location: : xxxxxx
Date of PCN issue : xxxxxx
PCN Number : xxxxxx

POPLA Verification Code: xxxxx


Dear POPLA Assessor,

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I'm writing this to appeala charge sent to me by Euro Car Parks Limited.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Unlawful penalty clause
No authority to levy charge



1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss



At the time the car was parked in the car park, therewere only 3 or 4 other cars in a car park with approximately 100 spaces at 11pmon a Monday evening, This car park is primarily for Church Farm Shopping Centrecustomers, of which there were no shops open at this time on this date so theamount requested does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. (Is this worth putting in?)

The demand for a payment of £90 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds anappropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have beensuffered by the Landowner. The
Euro Car Parks signs states that a PCN would be issued for a “failure tocomply” with the terms of parking, which indicates that the parking chargerepresents damages for a breach of the parking
contract.

Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. EuroCar Parks has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge isa genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge.

The BPA Code of Practice states:

“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for abreach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuinepre-estimate of loss that you suffer.“
and
“19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, thatcharge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. “

I put Euro Car Parks to strict proof that that their charge represents agenuine pre-estimate of loss. To date they have refused to provide me with adetailed breakdown of how the amount of the
“charge” was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicableto this car park and this alleged incident. I am aware from Court rulings andprevious POPLA adjudications
that the cost of running the business for example, were no breach to haveoccurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage,wages, uniforms, office costs)
would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included in thispre-estimate of loss.


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.


2. Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for Euro Car Parks Limited.

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract hasbeen alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up apenalty to impersonate a
parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services vHetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011),in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester
County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by Euro Car Parks is a revenue-raisingexercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. Euro Car Parks own website isdamning in this regard.

So this is (as is proven by the Operator's own website) a revenue-raisingscheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceablepenalty.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.



3. No authority to levy charges

A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisationto contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breachof contract.

Euro Car Parks must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner,or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue chargenotices at this location. I believe there is no
contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Euro Car Parks to levy thesecharges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courtsand therefore has no authority to issue
charge notices.

I put Euro Car Parks Limited to strict proof to POPLA that they have thenecessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that they produceto POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted
contract between the landowner and Euro Car Parks. Even if a basic contract isproduced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title orinterest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agencybasis between Euro Car Parks and the owner/occupier, containing nothing thatEuro Car Parks can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that couldimpact on a third party customer.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided“witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proofwhatsoever that the alleged signatory
on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed iseven an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement issubmitted, that it is accompanied
by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director orequivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed,authorised to act on behalf of the landowner,
has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest tothe full limit of authority of the parking company


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.



This concludes my appeal.

Kind regards