Draft POPLA Appeal - Help!

MotherBrown

Thanks for lots of advice over appealing against Parking Charge from CPPlus. I'm posting this draft, hoping the experts will check it before I send it off this weekend. I've included section on signage although a visit to the site did show pretty good signage - just wasn't looking for it. Should I keep this in? Thanks for any help!

On 19/02/14 I was sent a charge notice from CP PLUS requiring payment of a charge of £90 for the alleged parking contravention.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 Signage
2 Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner
3 No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss

1 Signage

The BPA Code of Practice states:

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your
permission does so under a licence or contract with you.
If they park without your permission this will usually be
an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land
will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the
driver should be made aware of from the start. You must
use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your
terms and conditions are.

18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.”

When the driver arrived on the service area during the hours of darkness no signage was seen warning users of the motorway services that a £90 charge would be imposed if they remained on the service area in excess of two hours.

There was no contract between the driver and CP Plus. The driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

Had the driver been made aware that CP Plus would charge £90 if they stayed more than two hours the driver would have ensured the vehicle left the service area within two hours.

Any signage was either non existent or inadequate during the hours of darkness.


''Signing within roadside facilities
100. All traffic signs and markings within roadside facilities should conform to the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 as amended or replaced from time to time.''

I require CP Plus to show proof to the POPLA adjudicator that the DFT/Highways Agency has granted special authorisation for CP Plus's 'traffic signs' in this particular MSA, to be exempt from this policy requirement. It will not be enough for CP Plus to claim that their particular signs placed in this MSA are in CP Plus’s own opinion, not 'traffic signs' when clearly they can indeed be interpreted as such and - unlike other adverts and signs on site - are not intended to direct pedestrians.

I put CP Plus to strict proof to provide evidence of date of erection of all signage and proof of compliance of that signage with the standards laid down in the TSRGD 2002 and with BPA Code of Practice and BSI Standards.

As CP Plus are arguing the driver entered into a legal contract with them based ENTIRELY on signage. I put CP Plus to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of their evidence that each sign was illuminated for the purpose of 'after dark' reading and to provide mapping of the signage.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.

I believe that CP Plus have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. If they do have such interest then I put them to strict proof to provide POPLA with the Deeds of Title in the land.

In the absence of such title, CP Plus must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges. I do not believe such a document is in existence.

I therefore put CP Plus to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between CP Plus and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.


3. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.

The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, 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. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. 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 this case, CP Plus has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £90 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that CP Plus has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case.

Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £90 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. By my car staying on the service area over the two hour limit, there has been no loss to the landowner.

I put CP Plus to strict proof to provide POPLA with a ‘Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss’ incurred due to my vehicle remaining on their service area

This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

Redx

you keep signage in to make them prove their signage meets BPA guidelines and for all you know they may use incorrect pictures, incorrect maps and all sorts of other issues that cause them grief, they have certainly made many mistakes when it comes to signage and contracts etc in the past (not just this PPC but all of them)

the point is you get them to prove it to popla, doesnt matter what you think , you cast doubt and they have to prove their case

MotherBrown

I'll send it off as is then. Couldn't have taken this on without the advice on the Forum so THANK YOU! Fingers crossed!

Redx

just wait for any more comments before sending it unless you are close to the deadline, dont rush it at this stage