Private PCN - No reply to my appeal after 3 months, then...

brutal_deluxe

Thanks!!! Ok so here it is again then. Is there any harm at all including the last bit about not being given sufficient opportunity to pay the reduced amount even if the charge was enforceable? I really feel strongly about this and look at it as a sort of safety net to at least lower the charge if for any reason the appeal is refused. Anything else I could include to bolster the appeal before I fire it off?
************

After a further review, the Registered Keeper wishes to appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice notice on the following grounds:

1/ No authority to issue tickets
It is disputed that the SmartPark LTD has a right to issue tickets on the land in question. The Registered Keeper requests to be provided with a copy of the contract between SmartPark LTD and the landowner/landholder that provides the necessary contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of the Parking Charge Notice.

2/ Creditor identity
The Parking Charge Notice and Notice to Keeper simply mentions SmartPark LTD. The Registered Keeper requests to know who the actual creditor is making this £80 parking charge demand. It has not been disclosed exactly who is making the claim and in what capacity.

3/ No contract
With relation to the on-site signage (specifically the entry sign), it leaves insufficient opportunity for the driver to safely review all contractual information before deciding to enter the car park. Furthermore, even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

4/ The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or is punitive or unreasonable
The appellant believes that the £80 charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss or is punitive or unreasonable in proportion to the alleged parking contravention, and is therefore not enforceable. If the latter, to charge £80 for the alleged 16 minute overstay is grossly disproportionate to the £1/hr fee. The appellant requires SmartPark LTD to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated solely in relation to this instance. The appellant is aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.

Furthermore, even if the charge was enforceable, SmartPark LTD failed to acknowledge receipt of the original appeal or return a decision. The appellant was thus never given opportunity to pay the reduced amount, despite making beyond reasonable effort to follow appeal instructions as set out on the reverse of the Penalty Charge Notice. (Electronic proof is available that the appeal email was correctly sent to the address provided) In any case, it is unreasonable that the appellant be held liable for the amount.


This concludes the appeal.

******************

brutal_deluxe

PS also found this in another successful appeal, worth putting in, in case they argue that the amount was contractual?:

Please note that The BPA have stated categorically that private parking charges do not attract VAT (based on the VCS -v- HMRC 2013 appeal decision) and therefore it follows that private parking charges cannot be a contractual matter, and can only represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A private parking company cannot allege a contract exists on the one hand (for POPLA and for the public) and yet suggest it's non-contractual and therefore a non-VAT matter (for HMRC). If it is a true Parking Charge, then the keeper will also require a VAT invoice.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No the last bit is completely irrelevant. It is no safety net at all as you would have no reason to pay even if u lost


Apart from that, the rest is fine. Just put issue no 4 first though

brutal_deluxe

OK thanks, gonna press on then. You reckon its worth adding to the GPEoL the bit about parking charges not being a contractual matter? Thought it might cover another base?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

No what you have got initially is enough to win

brutal_deluxe

Thanks all! I'll be sure to let you know of the result.

4consumerrights

Can this OP confirm which parking company this is? In post #4 it is creative now it is Smart??????

brutal_deluxe

Sorry. Trying to obscure the details!

brutal_deluxe

QUESTION:

According to the Ts and Cs, the car park claims a contractually agreed sum, not that of damages etc. In my appeal, I only refer to GPEoL. Is this going to be a problem?

bod1467

I'm not reading the whole thread again ... hasn't this already been covered? Some PPCs try to dress it up as a contractual charge but they always slip up somewhere in their wording.