PCN from PPS at Hull Port - Received NTK - What next?

willberine

I know - I apologise, just wanted to be crystal clear!!

Have sent it all to the BPA AOS - they seem to be on the ball now to be fair.

It is tempting to reply to PPS though and give them a bit of stick for trying to give me the run-around!

Also - I received the second letter in the CCS collect chain yesterday - lucky me, I might frame it!! :-D

Redx

I agree, by all means give them the run around as its the only way the idiots will learn, although I did tell you on page one they were shysters and linked other similar cases too

willberine

After postal appeal to CCS debt collectors I received a letter from them just one day after the second letter in their chain arrived - the 'notice of intended action' one.. letting me know that the account is now closed and that the matter has been handed back to PPS - interesting!

So CCS are no longer chasing me for the money but i'm not entirely convinced I won't hear anything else from PPS - although I did respond to their email telling me I cannot appeal to POPLA as 'it is only available to drivers who appeal within 28days to the windscreen ticket' - hahahah!

Have chased BPA regarding my complaint.....

willberine

Received a POPLA code after a very tedious email chain. Here is my draft appeal for approval;

On **/**/** Premier Parking Solutions issued a parking charge notice of £100 because 'no valid ticket or permit was displayed'.
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. Neither the parking company nor their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

5. Failure to establish keeper liability

6. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required.

Here are the detailed appeal points:

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits and charges planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease).


2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have 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 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 ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

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, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

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, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording received from PPS & on the signs 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 flowing 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.

The parking company claim that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included. I also know for a fact that PPS did not apply for the vehicle details so if this cost is included in their breakdown of losses then it must be dismissed.

5. No keeper liability has been established because (1) The notice to keeper is non compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (2) Hull Docks is covered by byelaws & is not relevant land. So, it is a matter of fact and law that a keeper who wasn't driving can not be held liable.

6. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required.

A payment for parking was made for the time the vehicle was located in the parking bay, and both tickets were displayed on the dashboard after payment. Adverse weather conditions at the time may have caused one of the 2 tickets to have fallen from the dashboard, explaining the photographic evidence from Premier Parking Solutions. I suggest that a sticker be provided on tickets (that many pay and display machines provide) to prevent this type of incident, or at least all information being on 1 ticket instead of 2. I have attached a copy of the debit from my bank account to Premier Parking Solutions for the period of parking to which this issue relates – there has been no loss incurred.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

This concludes my appeal.

Coupon-mad

As long as you've never said who was driving then you will/should win this at POPLA on 'no keeper liability'. But because PPS are making efforts to convince POPLA about their 'loss' I would firm up the no GPEOL paragraphs specifically like in b1die's case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65264315#Comment_65264315

And surely this sentence is wrong because you did wait for the NTK so they MUST have gone to the DVLA:

'I also know for a fact that PPS did not apply for the vehicle details so if this cost is included in their breakdown of losses then it must be dismissed.

Take your time over this because PPS have managed to hoodwink POPLA over their 'GPEOL' recently. You can see from b1rdie's thread that she has shown PPS' reply in full so have a look at that and counter-act it in advance in your 'no GPEOL' paragraphs. For example, you could say that it is not believable if PPS suggest that a manager on £24 per hour spends 3 hours on EVERY case seeing as it's in the public domain that PPS' replies to POPLA are in the main automatic templates. And that in the past they used a different GPEOL statement and have simply massaged the figures to try to match the magic number of £100 in spite of the fact that only 1% or 2% of cases even go to POPLA stage, and that there was no initial loss whatsoever where payment was made.

Here's a completed case where PPS lost at POPLA as the Assessor, Chris Adamson, sussed that there was no GPEOL:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4854037

But do not be complacent as they have changed their 'GPEOL' wording since, as you can see copied out in full in B1rdie's thread. You could send a pm to 'parkingfinemagnet' to see if he has kept the old 'GPEOL statement' that PPS submitted in Jan 2014 and what his 10 digit POPLA code was (then you can quote from it in yours as a compelling decision and to show how they have tweaked the figures!). If the sums are different in his case from PPS, you can show for a fact they have been massaged to try to get through POPLA and for no other genuine reason (the loss hasn't changed, there never was a loss).

bod1467

Point 3 at the top ... there not here (was no valid contract)

willberine

Coupon-mad wrote: »

As long as you've never said who was driving then you will/should win this at POPLA on 'no keeper liability'. But because PPS are making efforts to convince POPLA about their 'loss' I would firm up the no GPEOL paragraphs specifically like in b1die's case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65264315#Comment_65264315

And surely this sentence is wrong because you did wait for the NTK so they MUST have gone to the DVLA:

'I also know for a fact that PPS did not apply for the vehicle details so if this cost is included in their breakdown of losses then it must be dismissed.

Take your time over this because PPS have managed to hoodwink POPLA over their 'GPEOL' recently. You can see from b1rdie's thread that she has shown PPS' reply in full so have a look at that and counter-act it in advance in your 'no GPEOL' paragraphs. For example, you could say that it is not believable if PPS suggest that a manager on £24 per hour spends 3 hours on EVERY case seeing as it's in the public domain that PPS' replies to POPLA are in the main automatic templates. And that in the past they used a different GPEOL statement and have simply massaged the figures to try to match the magic number of £100 in spite of the fact that only 1% or 2% of cases even go to POPLA stage, and that there was no initial loss whatsoever where payment was made.

Here's a completed case where PPS lost at POPLA as the Assessor, Chris Adamson, sussed that there was no GPEOL:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4854037

But do not be complacent as they have changed their 'GPEOL' wording since, as you can see copied out in full in B1rdie's thread. You could send a pm to 'parkingfinemagnet' to see if he has kept the old 'GPEOL statement' that PPS submitted in Jan 2014 and what his 10 digit POPLA code was (then you can quote from it in yours as a compelling decision and to show how they have tweaked the figures!). If the sums are different in his case from PPS, you can show for a fact they have been massaged to try to get through POPLA and for no other genuine reason (the loss hasn't changed, there never was a loss).

I only put that as it was CCS who applied for the details not PPS. However I guess they could add that the cost is passed onto them somehow?

I will have a good look through the statement in birdie's thread and write some points to cover all angles.

Coupon-mad

The debt collector is allowed to obtain the DVLA details for an AOS member, and yes the PPC pay for the service without a doubt.

ampersand

Any update wilberine?

Another poster has received a ticket on same? land.
Here:

Coupon-mad

Yep, he won then posted more as 'Barry Chuckle' in the POPLA decisions thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66298317#Comment_66298317

New posters should use the specific 'PPS' POPLA appeals I have tailored recently to try to win every time. There are specific ones for particular PPS car parks, so far Hull Docks and Didcot are featured in 'How to win at POPLA' in the newbies sticky thread.