POPLA Appeal pcm (uk) Ltd

MidasTouch

Hi,

I was hoping some of you wonderful peps could check my appeal for me. I have been scouring all the threads and have done what I think is ok but need some expertise.

I did not receive a windscreen ticket although their photo evidence shows something yellow on the screen (photo too small to tell what it is). The first I heard of it was through the NTK. I have checked all dates etc and sadly it did arrive when required.


Here is the NTK: http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx297/shalaf3/pcn.jpg

http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx297/shalaf3/pcnbacl.jpg

signage:http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx297/shalaf3/2014-03-05125951.jpg
My proposed appeal:

Dear POPLA Assessor,!
verification code!xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds:

1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.

3. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper.

1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could possibly have been suffered by the Landowner or the Operator. Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. states that I have breached the terms and conditions of parking. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The Department for Transport guidelines state that: "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges: ''The OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.” 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.” Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge.


2. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices .As Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. to provide me with a full copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. and the landowner will be insufficient and only The Deed of Title in the land would do. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party.

Lease of the property allows me to use the flat and the parking spaces. Despite Parking Control Management Ltd signs, the Company has no right to charge a resident for parking in these spaces and they should produce their contract with the landowner that gives them that right.

3.No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


The bit in red I'm particularly not sure of if this is even true etc. - I do rent the flat and the parking is for residence permits only on a first come basis (mine slipped down windscreen and can be half seen in their photo evidence) but my tenancy agreement does not mention anything so not sure if this point can be used?

Also can I use the fact that they have said no discount available (although they did say that when they refused my appeal) does it need to be on the NTK?

Any suggestions you can offer would be greatly appreciated.:kisses3:

ABN

Your not at the POPLA stage yet. You need to appeal to PCM first they will then send a POPLA code if they reject your appeal.

They seem to be reluctant to go to POPLA at the moment so when they receive a sound appeal they are dropping the charge.

This is a copy of the one I sent which got my PCN cancelled.
“Dear Sir/Madam
REF xxxxxxxxx
I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle Reg xxxxxx with reference to Notice to Keeper number xxxxxxx regarding an alleged parking incident on xx/xx/xx at XXXXXX.

I am challenging, as the registered keeper, your parking charge notice on the following grounds. Please respond to each individual point that I state.
1) Unclear / Insufficient signage. The driver did not see any parking notices in the vicinity of where the vehicle was parked nor on the approach to where it was parked. I contend that your signage does not comply with the BPA guidelines.

2) Your claim is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The wording on your NTK appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. I challenge whether you or the landowner suffered any financial loss directly arising from my vehicle being parked in the alleged space.
Please note POPLA have upheld numerous appeals in favour of the motorist, including appeals against your company, on this ground alone. Thus I must conclude that you are fully aware of the validity of this point in this challenge.

4) I do not believe that your company has sufficient interest in the land to grant you the right to form contracts with drivers and pursue charges in your own name in the courts.

5) Your NTK does not confirm with Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012

If this challenge is rejected I require that you

1) Send me a valid POPLA code to allow me to make a detailed appeal to POPLA based on, but not limited to, the above points.

2) A copy or photograph of the signage used at the site.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully the registered keeper,”

MidasTouch

ABN wrote: »

Your not at the POPLA stage yet. You need to appeal to PCM first they will then send a POPLA code if the reject your appeal.

They seem to be reluctant to go to POPLA at the moment so when they receive a sound appeal they are dropping the charge.

This is a copy of the one I sent which got the PCN cancelled.
“Dear Sir/Madam
REF xxxxxxxxx
I am writing to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle Reg xxxxxx with reference to Notice to Keeper number xxxxxxx regarding an alleged parking incident on xx/xx/xx at XXXXXX.

I am challenging, as the registered keeper, your parking charge notice on the following grounds. Please respond to each individual point that I state.
1) Unclear / Insufficient signage. The driver did not see any parking notices in the vicinity of where the vehicle was parked nor on the approach to where it was parked. I contend that your signage does not comply with the BPA guidelines.
2) Your claim is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The wording on your NTK appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. I challenge whether you or the landowner suffered any financial loss directly arising from my vehicle being parked in the alleged space.
Please note POPLA have upheld numerous appeals in favour of the motorist, including appeals against your company, on this ground alone. Thus I must conclude that you are fully aware of the validity of this point in this challenge.
4) I do not believe that your company has sufficient interest in the land to grant you the right to form contracts with drivers and pursue charges in your own name in the courts.
5) Your NTK does not confirm with Schedule 4 of Protection Of Freedom Act 2012
If this challenge is rejected I require that you
1) Send me a valid POPLA code to allow me to make a detailed appeal to POPLA based on, but not limited to, the above points.
2) A copy or photograph of the signage used at the site.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully the registered keeper,”

Thanks for your help ABN

sorry I didn't make it very clear I have appealed to PCM (UK) Ltd. already and it was rejected. unfortunately I appealed to them before I looked in the forum so it is just an appeal based on insufficient adhesive supplied with the permit
They have supplied a popla code in rejection letter.
Do you think I have scuppered my chances due to that first appeal?

ABN

My knowledge on these matters are very limited. The above is as far as I had to go fortunatly.

Others with much more experience will be along to help you shortly. But fear not a good POPLAappeal will win no matter what your first appeal to PCM was.

Coupon-mad

That looks like it will win easily on no GPEOL because the sign and NTK talk about 'failure to comply/breach of terms' (which is the easiest sign to argue against!). The discount did not need to be 'offered' on the NTK so that's not a point to use.

Does the NTK state the 'period of parking' at all anywhere? If not then add that is as well and I would change the title of 3) to:

3. No keeper liability established under POFA 2012 - flaws in the Notice to Keeper

MidasTouch

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That looks like it will win easily on no GPEOL because the sign and NTK talk about 'failure to comply/breach of terms' (which is the easiest sign to argue against!). The discount did not need to be 'offered' on the NTK so that's not a point to use.

Does the NTK state the 'period of parking' at all anywhere? If not then add that is as well and I would change the title of 3) to:

3. No keeper liability established under POFA 2012 - flaws in the Notice to Keeper

Hi Coupon-mad thanks so much for your expertise

there is a time and date on the NTK but not a from and to (observation period). Not sure if that is failure to show 'period of parking' or not?

Also do you think the bit I have in red should be included?

Thanks again for your help :beer:

Coupon-mad

I would add 'there is no period of parking' under point 3) because it's true then. And change the point 3) heading, and yes, add in the bit in red.

MidasTouch

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would add 'there is no period of parking' under point 3) because it's true then. And change the point 3) heading, and yes, add in the bit in red.

Thanks a million your a star:j