Parking Charge Notice – 'Appeal' Letter

Spring_Heeled_Jack

Umkomaas wrote: »

Perhaps some slight adjustments?

That's great Umkomaas, thank you very much! Can that letter of complaint to the DVLA also be used as the letter of complaint to the BPA, with necessary name changes etc?

Umkomaas

Spring_Heeled_Jack wrote: »

That's great Umkomaas, thank you very much! Can that letter of complaint to the DVLA also be used as the letter of complaint to the BPA, with necessary name changes etc?

Why not - it's hard-ball time, with little to fear. Judges are getting wise to this rubbish.

The worm is starting to turn.

ColliesCarer

Spring_Heeled_Jack wrote: »

1/ Would it be fair to give them 15 days to respond? That's how long they gave me to provide them with their 'evidence'.

2/ I may just have to buy a new packet so I can send my letters of complaint to the DVLA and BPA tomorrow...

Forgive me adding numbers to your questions above - just makes it easier to refer to them

1/ I would give them 35 - days since the date you sent your appeal + 2 for delivery - If that comes out at less than 7 then I would give them 7 days.

2/ You can email your complaints to both the BPA and DVLA - contact details below

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
David Dunford
Operational Manager
Data Sharing Team - C1East
DVLA
Swansea
SA99 1DY

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk
Steve Clark
Head of Operational Services
British Parking Association
Stuart House
41-43 Perrymount Road
Haywards Heath
West Sussex
RH16 3BN

Spring_Heeled_Jack

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Forgive me adding numbers to your questions above - just makes it easier to refer to them

1/ I would give them 35 - days since the date you sent your appeal + 2 for delivery - If that comes out at less than 7 then I would give them 7 days.

Thanks for the contact details and this advice. As my appeal was sent over 40 days ago they'll be getting 7 days to respond.

I've compiled an invoice for them now too, I think it's fair:

A4 Copier Paper, 500 sheets - £3.00
Envelopes, 50 pack - £1.00
First class stamp (pre-31/03/2014 price rise) x 1 - £0.60
First class stamp (post-31/03/2014 price rise) x 1 - £0.62
HP Deskjet 3070A black printer ink cartridge - £8.41
Travel costs - £10.00

Net Total
£23.63

Total Amount Payable
£23.63

Spring_Heeled_Jack

Hello everyone,

Excel Parking have finally replied to my letter, and have issued me with a POPLA code. I hope it's ok to post it here so I can get your thoughts.







I must admit that if their intention was one last attempt to panic me into paying up then it's almost worked. Is there the possibility that more than £70 will be payable after POPLA appeal? I also had two disappointing replies to my complaints to the DVLA (bit of a surprise) and BPA, so I suppose I'm just a little disheartened at the moment. I can post these replies here if it will help you for future cases.

I'm panicking because the photos they have included blow what I consider to be my strongest points out of the water. One shows the ticket the driver bought upside down on the dashboard (looks like it has slipped and turned to me), and there's also a photo of a PCN envelope on the car's windscreen that inexplicably wasn't there when the driver returned (Excel suggest this could be due to "3rd parties").







The other photos they have included just show my car in the car park, my tax disc, two unrelated parking permits on my windscreen and strange shots of the inside of my car (perhaps they were looking for tickets on the floor).

Also, am I mad in thinking that I DID get the appeal in on time, as 25 minus 11 is 14? Or would it have had to have reached them on the 24th?

Any advice on this would be great, thanks in advance.

nigelbb

No you are not mad. The 11th was Day 0 so if you had replied within 1 day that would have been on the 12th within 2 days would be the 13th etc which means that 25th is 14 days.

Coupon-mad

Is there the possibility that more than £70 will be payable after POPLA appeal?

Nope. It's £70 if you lose or nothing when you win! You'll win on the 'no GPEOL' appeal point I suspect, or the 'no authority/standing/contract with landowner'. Keep the faith!!

Spring_Heeled_Jack

Hello everyone,

Sorry for not thanking you for your replies until now, I have been away on holiday and then returned to a pressing deadline at work so haven't had a chance to get back to this until now. I have now drafted my POPLA appeal, any feedback you would like to add on it would be greatly appreciated

Dear POPLA Assessor

I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number [Vehicle Reg.] to appeal against the parking charge notice [PCN No.], issued by Excel Parking Services Ltd on 11/02/2014. I believe that I am not liable for this parking charge on the grounds stated below, and would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Flawed contract with landowner/authority to issue PCNs
2. No contract between driver/inadequate signage
3. Non-genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. No proof of planning consent for 1 hour parking allowed
6. Failure to identify the creditor

1. Flawed contract with landowner/authority to issue PCNs
Excel Parking Services do not own the SA1 Swansea Waterfront car park and are merely agents of its landowner or legal occupier. In their notice and subsequent correspondence, Excel Parking have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from me as the registered keeper of this vehicle.

I request that Excel Parking provide evidence to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner or legal occupier of this car park to establish a contract with drivers and to pursue charges in the courts in their own name as creditor for breach of contract. This evidence should consist of the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner or legal occupier of this car park and Excel Parking Services Ltd.


2. No contract between driver/inadequate signage
Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question, and have found that the signage at this car park is inadequate for numerous reasons. The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from. It is difficult to view this sign from the road without impeding the flow of traffic, and to stop to read it when entering the car park would make it necessary to temporarily park on the pavement, thus becoming a safety hazard for pedestrians.

The BPA Code of Practice Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage. It states that “the sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “there must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”. Based on these two points, I believe that the signage in this car park does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice, and challenge Excel Parking Services to prove otherwise.


3. Non-genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £70.00 demanded by Excel Parking Services is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the landowner. The BPA code of practice states that “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...if your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

I require Excel Parking Services to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the ‘charge’ was calculated. The costs detailed in this breakdown must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach, and this pre-estimate of loss must add up to the exact amount of £70.00 as demanded by Excel Parking Services.

As Excel Parking Services charge £1.30 to park for an hour at this site, the driver would have had to have remained parked there for just under 54 consecutive hours for this charge to be proportionate to any pre-estimate of loss. This was not the case. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the cost of wages, uniforms, office rental/purchase, the erection of signage, the installation and maintenance of ANPR cameras, the cost of membership to the BPA Ltd, etc.) may NOT be included in this pre-estimate of loss. Not only are these operational costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in the SA1 Swansea Waterfront car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same. I am also aware that Excel Parking Services may not include the POPLA fee in a pre-estimate of loss.


4. Unlawful penalty charge
The charge issued by Excel Parking Services is a willful attempt to extort me as the registered keeper of the vehicle. When sending me details of their invoice, Excel Parking Services indicated that they were issuing me with a ‘PCN’ or ‘Charge Notice’, a deliberate attempt to trick me into believing that I had been issued with an official parking fine as enforced by the police and local authorities, rather than being invoiced for a speculative charge.

I would also like to draw to your attention that Excel Parking Services have denied me their ‘reduced’ parking charge rate of £35, even though they admit that my appeal reached their offices within the 14 days required to trigger this reduced rate of payment. Please see attached evidence of their admission that my appeal reached their office by 25/02/2014 (exactly 14 days after the date of notice 11/02/2014). I believe that this is a further attempt to extort me as the registered keeper of this vehicle, as I was eligible for this reduced rate of payment under the operator’s own arbitrary conditions. The fact that Excel Parking Services can offer a reduced rate of payment at all further highlights the fact that this cannot be a true pre-estimate of loss.


5. No proof of planning consent for 1 hour parking allowed
In previous cases it has been proven that some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the parking time limit. I challenge Excel Parking Services to provide evidence that they have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities to operate this car park on a 1 hour time limit.


6. Failure to identify the creditor
In the notice I have received as the registered keeper of this vehicle, Excel Parking Services have failed to identify the ‘creditor’. This may, in law, be Excel Parking Services, their client, their debt-collecting agent, the landowner, or some other party. Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 clearly states that the notice must “identify the creditor.”

Excel Parking Services have failed to identify the creditor, instead leaving it to be assumed whom the creditor is. The owner of the vehicle is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom the driver has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the ‘creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, Excel Parking Services has failed to establish keeper liability. In this case, the NTK has not been correctly ‘given’ under POFA2012, and so it is a nullity.

In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge, stating: “where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.”


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

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Yep send that tonight as your POPLA code must be close to expiry! I would suggest make the title of point #6 more obvious that there's no keeper liability:

6. Failure to identify the creditor - no keeper liability under POFA 2012

...and maybe make that point #5 as 'Planning Permission' isn't a POPLA issue so you could lose that.

Spring_Heeled_Jack

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep send that tonight as your POPLA code must be close to expiry! I would suggest make the title of point #6 more obvious that there's no keeper liability:

6. Failure to identify the creditor - no keeper liability under POFA 2012

...and maybe make that point #5 as 'Planning Permission' isn't a POPLA issue so you could lose that.

Thank you for this Coupon-mad, I have now made those changes to the appeal.

The POPLA checker on Parking Cowboys says I have 5 days left for my appeal to reach POPLA, but I was intending on sending it online this evening if all was ok with the appeal. Is that ok, or is it better to send it by post and get a proof of postage?