Kingston Court Retail Park - Newcastle

Ppirate14

Is there any forum member out there that is currently preparing or successfully won an appeal against PE for a PCN at Kingston Court Retail Park - I am currently in the process of preparing a POPLA appeal

Redx

I dont remember seeing any for that place on here, but what I will say is that it will hardly differ from any other place they infest

just use the usual popla appeal templates as a guide for your own , adapting them to suit your own circumstances, then post it on here for checking, minus any personal info of course (redacted)

the appeal points for popla will remain the same as in all other appeals listed on here

edit

found one from last year here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4682815 by using the search function and the search word kingston

Stroma

The particular car park is not really going to be an issue, the popla appeals are pretty generic with the same arguments in each of them, genuine pre estimate of loss, signage not compliant, and no authority. Please post up your appeal before submitting it to popla to ensure that you have a winning one

Ppirate14

Thanks for the prompt reply Redx + Stroma, I have been overwhelmed by all the stuff on this forum on PPC, still preparing my POPLA appeal but will post it up for checking when done.
Just a brief summary of my case : its a up to 3hrs car park controlled by ANPR cameras managed by PE, the car had overstayed by literally minutes, I appealed immediately to PE, which was rejected by them rather quickly surprise surprise!!!... the driver did not make any purchases therefore no receipts
When it comes to the point to submit an appeal to POPLA is it best to do this online,?? I've looked at their website : does the "submit an appeal online" button mean registering/confirming interest to do so after entering my verification code, then clicking submit evidence & enter verification code to submit written text and attachments (if any) also must this all be done at one time... apologies for maybe sounding a bit thick!!! but this is first time for me... I'm a bit of a Victor Meldrew type & about the same age too!!! - If it were not for the internet just think how much more these PPC cowboys would be getting away with

Ppirate14

Here is my draft appeal to POPLA for checking please give any comment please

Date:

POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Car Park:
Alleged Contravention Date and Time:
Date of Notice:
Parking Charge Amount:

Dear Sir/Madam

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle above and am appealing against the parking charge above, I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below and would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
5. Business Rates
6. ANPR Accuracy

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The Amount of (Amount) demanded by ParkingEye Ltd. is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre. I request ParkingEye Ltd. to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of (Amount).

As in previous cases, the parking company has included day to day running costs of the business (e.g.- wages, uniforms, signage erection, installation of ANPR cameras, office costs) these would have occurred even had there been a breach or not and therefore may not be included in the pre-estimate of loss.

It would therefore follow that these charges are punitive and have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.
ParkingEye made over 600,000 keeper requests to the DVLA in their 2011/12 financial year and their accounts show the total cost of running the entire business to be £9.4 million. This limits the average cost per ticket to a maximum of £9.4m/600,000, or approximately £16. As not every cost of running the business is attributable to processing tickets, the average cost must be even less. ParkingEye's claim that the average cost per ticket is £53 is therefore provably false.

Furthermore, I attach a letter from Parking Eye in correspondence with another case, that admits that their estimate of cost in each case is actually £53, including operating costs, and that the charge they are seeking to impose in my case has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. By their own admission, therefore, It cannot, be a true pre-estimate of loss

2. Signage
The signage is not adequate to create a contract with the motorist. The car park does not contain the required entrance signage
Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see especially the small print at the lower section of the signs. (see attached photograph of one of the signs on this site)
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver with any sense would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

3. Contract with Landowner
ParkingEye Ltd. does not own this car park and are merely agents of the owner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters ParkingEye Ltd. have provided me with there is no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put it to ParkingEye Ltd to provide strict proof to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand that ParkingEye Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and ParkingEye Ltd.

It has also been widely reported that ParkingEye have in the past provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on the landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner and has read the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges through the courts if necessary.



4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there is no demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract as 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. ParkingEye Ltd. could state the letter as a invoice or request for monies, yet they choose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to be deemed as a official parking fine such as the ones issued by Police and local authorities.

5. Business Rates
As the car park is being used for the purpose of running a business by ParkingEye Ltd., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park service and therefore generates revenue and profit for ParkingEye Ltd., I do not believe that ParkingEye Ltd. has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put ParkingEye Ltd. to provide strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at (Car Park Name) car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

6. ANPR Accuracy
Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking companies to make sure ANPR equipment is maintained and in correct working order. I require ParkingEye Ltd. to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated and maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important as the parking charge issued is founded on two photos of my vehicle entering the car park and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that Parking Eye Ltd produce evidence in response to these points.

This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if ParkingEye Ltd. fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in all my points highlighted above.

Yours sincerely

Redx

bullet point 1) and header 1) should say

1. Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Ppirate14

Thanks will edit that - otherwise do you think its a robust enough appeal?

Redx

Ppirate14 wrote: »

Thanks will edit that - otherwise do you think its a robust enough appeal?

looks good to me

Ppirate14

Thats good - because I have spent ages on research on this site trying to get it right thanks for your input