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

brutal_deluxe

Coupon-mad

EDIT - PANIC OVER!!!

That is NOT a contractual fee to park, so 'no GPEOL' will win!

Sorry for doubting you but you were too evasive and I thought you might be from one of the firms I mentioned!

brutal_deluxe

AHHHH THANK YOU!!!

Yeh sorry about all the confusion with deceptive PPC's and fees etc. Loads on my mind at the moment and just not concentrating and totally paranoid. Just wanna say thanks so much again for your time and efforts. How do you figure it isn't contractual when it mentions contract?

brutal_deluxe

PS For info - here was my ACTUAL POPLA submission. So the wording is OK (GPEoL bit)? Just to remind, it was for non-display of ticket.

After a further review, the Registered Keeper (or appellant) wishes to appeal against the Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:

1/ The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or is punitive or unreasonable
The appellant believes that the £75 charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss or is punitive or unreasonable in proportion to the alleged parking offence, and is therefore not enforceable. If the latter, to charge £75 for the alleged 16 minute overstay is grossly disproportionate to the £1 per 4hr fee. The appellant requires ‘Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited’ 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.

2/ No authority to issue tickets
It is disputed that ‘Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited’ have a right to issue tickets on the land in question. The appellant requests to be provided with a copy of the contract between ‘Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited’ and the landowner/landholder that provides the necessary contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of the Parking Charge Notice.

3/ Creditor identity
The Parking Charge Notice and Notice to Keeper simply mentions ‘Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited’. The appellant requests to know who the actual creditor is making this £75 parking charge demand. It has not been disclosed exactly who is making the claim and in what capacity.

4/ No contract
With relation to signage (specifically the entry sign), it leaves insufficient opportunity for the driver to safely conduct a review of contractual information before deciding to enter the car park, especially in the dark, as were the conditions at the time. 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.

Coupon-mad

The words that give away that they are in fact alleging breach of terms, are 'contravening', 'contravention' and 'failing to' and 'unauthorised'. All of those words mean the charge arises when there is a breach of terms. So they have to show a GPEOL and they won't be able to, because there isn't a loss!

And your appeal is looking good. That's a relief!

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

These things dont need to be drawn out like this......

brutal_deluxe

**UPDATE**

I have received a copy of the POPLA Evidence Pack from Corporate Services LTD which contains requested info re signage/contract etc.

The copies of the signage are not photos of the actual signs on the site, but claim to be print copies.

They have not provided any actual costs, saying they had to be removed (not sure if they are on the copy they sent to POPLA)

They have also provided photos of the pay and display machines and entrance to building in the dark.

In reply to my appeal points, they say the following:

1/ No GPEoL
In calculating our GPEoL, we have looked at the costs we incur because motorists do breach terms and conditions and locations which we manage. If all motorists didn't park where they shouldn't, paid what they should, didn't overstay and followed all specified terms and conditions at the sites we look after for our landowner clients, these costs would not exist.

Attendant patrols and included but not limited to supervisory staff and vehicles, training uniforms.
Erection and maintenance of site signage.
Monitoring equipment
Back-office costs for processing PCN's including systems and staff.
Cost of handling appeals.
DVLA fees.
ATA membership.
ICO registration.
TOTAL = (commercially sensitive information has been redacted)

2/ No authority to issue tickets
Contract between ourselves and landowner attached.

3/ Creditor identity
The sums due are payable to Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited for a parking charge notice issued following breach of parking conditions in their capacity as parking management providers to the landlord.

4/ No contract
The T&Cs of parking are displayed by the pay and display machines in the parking area. These are well lit at night. The images attached, although not taken at the time of issue, shows the lighting around the machine situated at the entrance of the building. In entering the car park, Mr *** would have driven past the pay and display machine, and walked past to enter the building.

(OTHER COMMENTS)

5/
15 minutes free parking is offered in this car park, confirmed by the observation period of 16 minutes which was recorded by our attendant. We would suggest this offers sufficient time to park and read the terms and conditions and to leave if you do not agree.

6/
Mr *** acknowledges in his email that he was aware of the parking conditions and that the notice was correctly issued and he is appealing on grounds of good will.

7/
In relation to the Unfair Terms in the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, we dispute this. The wording used is standard industry use and has been confirmed as correct and acceptable by the BPA and is accepted as correct on DVLA applications. The language is clear and simple without the over use of technical terms, the print size is easily readable. The meaning of the terms and conditions is clearly stated and not misleading.

Half_way

looks like another PPC has failed to understand gpeol and is trying to dazzle the public with bulshit.

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.

and the ppc said these are costs..

Attendant patrols and included but not limited to supervisory staff and vehicles, training uniforms.
Erection and maintenance of site signage.
Monitoring equipment
Back-office costs for processing PCN's including systems and staff.

perhaps you could buy them a toothbrush should their solicitor need it.

Coupon-mad

You'll have won this before March is out.

Stroma

I agree , they are using tax deductible costs of running their business in the gpeol , this will fail at popla.