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

eleanorrigby

tiny <gap here> pic.com/view.php?pic=2it2aua&s=8#.Uwjip_l_vfA

Ok, sorry for the delay ..Here's the picture of the sign ^

&, thanks to Coupon, & Nodding-D, & 4cr, - for assistance & computer help...

Coupon-mad

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2it2aua&s=8#.UwlPEdHuupp


That's nice and easy then - they allege 'failure to comply' results in a charge so they have to show a 'GPEOL' (see the NEWBIES thread for acronyms).

eleanorrigby

Hi,

Yes - on the NTK there is no 'period of parking'. Only 'time of issue'.

I cut&pasted this paragraph :
''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. ''
...from another appeal, tho now I see it is aimed more towards the 'Parking Company', rather than POPLa.

If I re-word this to POPLa , so , ''My challenge is based on the assertion that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to UKPPO or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. ''

Would that be sufficient on its own? It seems logical based on my understanding, & I don't know if adding points 2-5 would back up the reasoning, or cloud it somewhat.
&, do you think it would be appropriate to add :
'' 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. ''

Thanks

Coupon-mad

do you think it would be appropriate to add :
'' 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.

Nope, not for a POPLA appeal because you are addressing POPLA not the PPC and you send it to POPLA of course. And whilst you can drop points 3 and 4 and 5 in your example above, you certainly do need a better-worded 'point 2' about landowner contract (that's a horribly old rambling version you found). And you need 'No keeper liability - NTK not properly given under POFA2012' stating the NTK omissions.

Decent paragraphs for both those points are in most examples linked under 'How to win at POPLA' in post #3 of the newbies thread. Tell me where you found that old template you used and I will delete it if it's among my examples as it's a bit of a mess where it talks about 'complicated things' pointlessly!

Have another look at the POPLA examples linked to the NEWBIES thread, to pick out a more recent version with 'landowner contract' and 'NTK not properly given' paragraphs. You should not rely on 'No GPEOL' alone just in case a PPC busts a gut to try to show it was a genuine calculation (then you'd have nothing to fall back on!).

eleanorrigby

tinypic .com?ref=1z3wehz" target="_blank"><img src=" /i59.tinypic .com/1z3wehz.jpg" border="0" alt="Image and video hosting by TinyPic"></a>


^ amendment - the previous pic I posted was from outside the carpark, as I couldn't get in the other day...I asked my friend to photo the sign from inside - that 's the above link - slightly different wording etc. ...

Cheers, C-M. I can't seem to find the exact too-wordy quote I used before, so suspect I might have cut &pasted a couple & added them together...

Coupon-mad

I can't get the links to work.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Try http://i59.tinypic.com/1z3wehz.jpg

Coupon-mad

That's a nice easy 'failure to comply' sign that you can use 'no GPEOL' against but I still wouldn't recommend just one appeal point in case the Assessor gets it wrong!

eleanorrigby

Can't seem to find a paragraph relating to 'NTK not properly given'
Would that be covered in point 2?...
New draft below:


-1.
My challenge is based on the assertion that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to UKPPO or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal.
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. I declare 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. - CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

UKPPO do not 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, UKPPO 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 in question.

I would also request that POPLA to please check whether UKPPO have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. 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.

Also, UKPPO in their appeal refusal of XXXXdate state “we are prepared to accept the reduced amount…” and make no reference to the Landlord at all.


SUMMARY

On the basis of 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,

Coupon-mad

Have a look at paragraph 4 here which quotes 'flaws with paragraph 8 of POFA2012' (but your flaws and omissions may differ from these):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64636922#Comment_64636922

Don't copy the waste of space 'Business rates' paragraph from that example, though.

But, do please add in a paragraph about 'unclear signs which did not form any contract with me as driver' (I see you've told them you were driving, ooops). You will find an unclear signs paragraph in almost every POPLA example. A deliberate inclusion in any POPLA appeal to force the PPC to show maps & photos that they could get wrong.


Oh, and remove this as it means nothing that will impress any POPLA Assessor (old template I assume you used):

''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.

Also, UKPPO in their appeal refusal of XXXXdate state “we are prepared to accept the reduced amount…” and make no reference to the Landlord at all.''

So that whole section above is ALL deleted as not useful for a POPLA appeal ^^^^^^^^^




HTH - can I just double check that the actual sign on site talks about 'contravention' or 'breach' or failure to comply'? I can't see a pic of the sign now.