Help ! Cant find help on your threads. Restricted 2 hrs. Applying to POPLA.

Redx

you need to stop beating about the bush and get the popla appeal to popla before the deadline, ie:- it has to be with them before the deadline, not "in the post"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822 post 3 has links to popla appeals you can use , where the 3 main points need to be not a gpeol , no contract (no standing) and bad signage ,

bear in mind you dont decide if the above points are relevant, you question them through popla and popla decide on relevancy

if you have further points to add to your appeal (not complaints or mitigation etc) then add them in, but get those main 3 in whatever happens

so do the popla appeal today, in notepad , then post on here for checking, minus any personal info of course (a redacted appeal)

then you can appeal online with this notepad draft to make sure it gets there asap, no tardiness as one poster today has found out their appeal arrived too late, and too late means never

then complain to the BPA and DVLA about the popla reference being incorrect by 10 days ! addresses are in that same NEWBIES thread

ps:- they will chase you, the keeper, as under POFA 2012 you are held accountable, unless you name the driver (but dont name the driver yet, sort this out as keeper)

what happened on the day is largely irrelevant to this appeal, see this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835943

Coupon-mad

Not sure how difficult it is to click on a link in the NEWBIES thread which clearly says 'How to win at POPLA' but here it is again:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Just develop your own draft appeal based on those, where relevant, and show it to us.

pogofish

Newlook wrote: »

I have read your advice thread over the past week and was wondering if you can help as I don’t feel that I fit into any of your threads?

This is patent tosh!

You are in exactly the same situation as all the other RK's who get a ticket as a result of someone else driving your car.

You need to stop overthinking this, taking both yourself and the PPC so seriously and actually read the ton of good advice you have been pointed at!

System

Thanks.


I have put together my appeal. Is there a certain place to post it on here? I have also deleted PPC, dates etc, is this OK?
Thanks

Redx

copy and paste into notepad and save on your pc, then copy and paste FROM NOTEPAD onto here in a reply to this reply, minus any personal info obviously

this will stop any formatting issues arising (if you have done it in word etc)

bear in mind you need to be quick as you only have a few days left to get it to them, ideally on line

System

Hi,
Just wondering if you received my post. I clicked the 'reply here' as there were only the Report and spam option to choose from.

Thanks

hoohoo

Post your appeal up and we will comment. Doesn't really matter how good it is. As you were not the driver you will get a second chance anyway. Anpr works by infrared which is why the picture of the numberplate looks funny. Once you have appealed we can look at a complaint to the BPA and DVLA for sending you a code 10 days out of date but most important is to get the popla appeal off

System

Thanks for your advice.

However it's not the picture on the number plate that looks funny as there is no actual Reg plate shown on the image of the car on entering the car park, it could be any bodies, but there is an image of the number plate on the exiting.

Thanks

System

Thank you.
Please advise which to delete as I feel there are to many here.


Car Reg :
Location:
Date of PCN Issue: Issue 1-Parking Charge (Date).
Issue 2, Notice to Keeper (date).
PCN Number :

POPLA Verification Code:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write this letter as the Registered Keeper ( not the driver) in order to appeal a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on (date) and finally received as an ( RE: Notice to Keeper / date) for alleged “breach of advertised terms and conditions within the (store name) car park at Retail Park, (address and postcode).
I have appealed this PCN directly with (ppc) who have unfortunately decided to uphold the charge. (Please see enclosed letter dated….). I therefore appeal to your organisation for careful consideration and objective assessment.
I dispute the PCN on the following grounds:
1. NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS.

2. CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES.

3. UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE.

4. NOTICE TO KEEPER NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012.

5. UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE.

6. UNREASONABLE.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS.
The parking charge of £… sought by PPC is a penalty and not a pre-estimate of loss. PPC state in a letter to keeper (date), “their parking charges are justified on the bases that not only do they amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss but are likely to amount to liquidation damages” – which can only mean compensation agreed in advance. However PPC parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge.
The demand for a payment of £… has no relationship to the loss suffered by the Landowner. The car park has no parking charge levies; the car park is “free” and on the date of the alleged loss it was only at ..% capacity. In addition, the store closed at 7pm and it was a camera that witnessed the driver exiting the car park and not an attendant, as there was no attendant available anywhere on site, therefore there was no physical damage caused and there can’t have been a loss. The £… charge is in no way proportionate as it does not even equate to 2014 Local Council’s all day parking charges- which amount to Short Stay Car Parks £… including VAT, and Long Stay Car Parks £… including VAT. Please see …… Borough Council Income Tariff 2014 Page…
https://www.madeup boroughcouncil2014incomeandtarrifcharges
Date (…)

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES.
PPC do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Parking Charge Notice to Keeper and in the rejection letter, PPC have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land.

May I also politely request that POPLA check whether PPC have indeed provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I suggest that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of ‘Private Parking Charges’.
It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages, they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.

UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE.
Due to the high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand, and no notices at all is placed on or positioned on the entrance or exist to the store.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms PPC are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I challenge that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]).

NOTICE TO KEEPER NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012.

NOTICE TO KEEPER - NOT PROPERLY GIVEN UNDER POFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper letter I received omits the required information if it were to establish 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012.PPC have omitted required wording from paragraph 9, Schedule 4, of POFA 2012, namely:

''9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1) (b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must—
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.''

In this case, the Notice to Keeper has not been correctly 'given' under POFA2012 and due to the omission of Part 2 (ii), (ii), (g) is nullity as the driver has not been identified for this parking event, UKPC do not have the right party for their alleged 'contract/breach' since they have failed to establish keeper liability.
Also, it omits (g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment Please see the enclosed letter ‘RE: Notice to Keeper ‘ (date) and the ‘FINAL REMINDER’ (date)’ where at no point did PPC inform the registered keeper of any discount for prompt payment in either of its ‘ Notice to Keeper’ or ‘FINAL REMINDER’ letters. The latter, of which I can only presume is meant for the ‘registered keeper’ as it does not state the title ‘RE ‘Notice to Keeper’ in its FINAL REMINDER letter’ but states FINAL REMINDER.
Please see reply/appeal letter to PPC (date), in response to ‘PPC ‘RE: Notice to Keeper (date). This’ letter informs how the registered keeper could not assist in providing ‘driver details’ but did provide ‘owner details,’ to assist PPC in identifying the driver, however PPC did not attempt to contact the owner to try and gain driver details but pursued the registered keeper instead.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since there was no confirmable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “…. PARKING CHARGE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.

UNREASONABLE

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

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 , POFA 2012 and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

- Please remove anything about Council tariffs which are utterly irrelevant.

- Make sure your paragraphs are numbered to match the introduction numbers.

- And decide which of these 2 headings you want for this paragraph (the second one is better):

NOTICE TO KEEPER NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE PROTECTION OF FREEDOMS ACT 2012.

NOTICE TO KEEPER - NOT PROPERLY GIVEN UNDER POFA 2012


- If it was a camera-issued PCN then add a paragraph about non-compliant and unreliable ANPR (easy to find in the example links).


- And I would remove this entirely:

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no confirmable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “…. PARKING CHARGE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.