HELP! Parking Charge Notice -I was driver. still a case?

Stroma

When you are ready please place the wording up for your popla appeal, we will ensure it will be a winner for you

Coupon-mad

Haven't seen a UKPPO one for a while. Can you show us a picture of the signage and the Notice to Keeper (both sides) please?

bod1467

4consumerrights wrote: »

UKPC appeals office are not based in Manchester - where did you get the address from?

As C-M rightly notes, it is UKPPO and not UKPC.

eleanorrigby

Hello again,
Ok..I've been reading up..
Coupon-Mad, I'm not sure how to attach a picture of the ntk on here, tho I can email it to you (not sure if that's the done thing on these forums..? ) if you like... & also, unsure of how much personal detail to divulge - I know it says at the foot of some posts not to include some information...
& I don't have a clear picture of the sign, thou next time I visit my friend I'll take a photo & post it up.

Some things I'm unsure of:

- On the appeal rejection letter, it does point out that I was parked in front of the sign.
& in a past appeal rejection, S Watson has stated :
''The Appellant does not dispute that the signs were clearly displayed. Therefore I must find that by parking the vehicle at the site, regardless of whether the bay was his allocated bay, the Appellant agreed to the contractual terms and conditions displayed on the signs. If the Appellant did not agree, he could have parked elsewhere. ''


- I entered the POPLa code on the 'checker' & it said,
''This code was generated 1 day before the date of your appeal rejection letter, meaning that I have not been given the full 28 days to appeal that I am entitled to under the British Parking Association's Code of Practice.''
Is this a technicality worth mentioning in appeal, being that the 28 days is not yet up?

---

my appeal draft

---

Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA 123456789

Without prejudice

Civil Parking Notice (CPN): 12345
Vehicle Reg: qwerty
Date of Issue:
Company in question: The UK Parking Patrol Office (UKPPO)

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

1. -THE CHARGE DOES NOT REPRESENT A GENUINE PRE ESTIMATION OF LOSS. (I was parked in my friend's designated space, so no-one else could have parked there anyway. Further, no damage was caused to the car park.)

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

3. - NO CONTRACT WITH DRIVER

4. - UNFAIR TERMS

5. - UNREASONABLE

---

-1.
My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld. If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.

2. -

The operator does not appear to own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, The operator has 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 in question.

I require The operator to provides a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner.

Contracts are complicated things, so a witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original showing the points above is the only acceptable items as evidence that a contract exists and authorises The Operator the right, under contract to write numerous letters to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants and to pursue them through to Court.

I say 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.

3. -

There is no contract between PCC and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

4. -

The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

5-

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 and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Yours,

XXXXX

---

I think these 5 points are relevant, not sure if I 've missed anything obvious...
So now I need to also write to the carpark & DVLA.. The more I read this really does seem to be a scam to make money from people who don't know the ins&outs of the law.

Thanks everyone who has taken an interest in this matter (I feel daft keeping saying thankyou, but I really do appreciate your time) - I'm going to send this info over to my friend & make sure it is distributed around the flats.

Coupon-mad

Get rid of 'Without prejudice' (pointless legalese which doesn't help) and can you show 'broken links' to the NTK (both sides) and the sign. That means host the pics on tinypic or photobucket and then when you try to post the URL here you will have to remove the http:// and put a gap in the URL (as you are a newbie).

It is important (as UKPPO signs & docs haven't been checked recently) that we see whether the signs and docs have 'breach' in them or similar words, and if the NTK is POFA2012 compliant in wording.

eleanorrigby

tinypic[/url]. com/view.php?pic=ilegdc&s=8#.UwYsKPl_vfB

tinypic .com?ref=2njfqsw" target="_blank"><img src=" /i60.tinypic. com/2njfqsw.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>

these are the ntk pics

bit in the middle has personal details in , so omitted.
''This letter is sent to the reg. keeper advising that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the driver of the vehicle XXX at XXX at location XXX for the alleged contravention of ''No Permit''. This PCN has not been paid in full & the oppurtunity to pay a discounted amount has been lost. Signs at the location displayed the terms & conditions of parking. Drivers who contravene the terms & conditions are liable to pay a parking charge. ''


pic of sign to follow...

Also, have since learned that the flats don't own the carpark !? so unsure who owns it...

Coupon-mad

I am finding those broken links a bit too broken to get my head around at silly o'clock, sorry!

4consumerrights

bod1467 wrote: »

As C-M rightly notes, it is UKPPO and not UKPC.

Yep - realised mistake - whoops - skimming again!:)

As coupon says - remove without prejudice heading.

The wording/layout is a little disjointed.

I can't get those links to work - something wrong there - unless Redx or Bod can work them out. And a picture of signage too.

'This letter is sent to the reg. keeper advising that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the driver of the vehicle XXX at XXX at location XXX for the alleged contravention of ''No Permit''. This PCN has not been paid in full & the oppurtunity to pay a discounted amount has been lost. Signs at the location displayed the terms & conditions of parking. Drivers who contravene the terms & conditions are liable to pay a parking charge. ''

contravening terms and conditions = breach
GPEOL wording needs expanding here - and if signage suggests contractual or trespass then exploit confusing and contradictory terminology.

Nodding_Donkey

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=ilegdc&s=8#.UwbOuON_tOa

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2njfqsw&s=8#.UwbPOON_tOY

HTH

Coupon-mad

Can't see that they have 'identified the creditor?' And have they included the 'period of parking' or only the time issued? Basically you should compare that NTK to the simple bullet points under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of POPLA (not as complicated at it sounds at all).

The Act's wording is linked near the top of the 'NEWBIES read this first' sticky. Read paragraph 8 slowly and carefully - have they repeated all the info they had to, from the PCN? Creditor? Period of Parking?