PCN Peel Center Stockport,Excel

Dannnnnn

Hi
New to the forum.
I have been told to start a new thread even though I only had a small question to ask, so here goes.

I recently received a PCN for parking without a ticket at the peel center Stockport while at KFC. It was a Sunday night at 8pm and tbh didn't realise it was 24h pay and display. Anyway as I have read on other threads the reasons/excuses/situations don't really matter too much.
After reading the newbie guides and lots of other threads I decided to copy a template and send my appeal to Excel
I sent my appeal email to excel last Monday and I haven't received a reply as of yet and I'm getting a bit restless. How long do they normally take to reply/reject your appeal?
Thanks. Dan

Coupon-mad

If you have a look at the NEWBIES sticky thread most questions are answered there. But under the BPA Code, members should reply within 35 days so relax and spend the time preparing your POPLA appeal seeing as we know Excel will reject the first appeal.

You can find loads of Peel Centre threads (with POPLA appeal wording already typed out, on many) by searching this forum for 'Peel' as a keyword.

Dannnnnn

Thanks coupon-mad
Yea I had 35 days in my head but I couldn't recall where I had seen it so didn't want to chance it.
Yea I'll get my POPLA sorted soon.
Thanks again

Dannnnnn

Ok so it's has passed 30 days today since I sent my appeal off to excel and still no reply. I'm aware there's 5 more days left but I'm just curious as to why there has been no reply yet?

This is the confirmation email they sent me when I sent them the email 30 days ago.

Dear Sir/Madam

This is an automated response notification regarding your APPEAL/CHALLENGE to a Parking Charge Notice.

Please be advised that we acknowledge receipt of your email, and will be responding directly to you in due course. However, prior to doing so we require the following information in advance to enable us to process your APPEAL/CHALLENGE. If you have not already done so, please forward the following information as a matter of urgency, as we are unable to process your APPEAL/CHALLENGE without it:

1) The PARKING NOTICE SERIAL NUMBER This can be found in the top right hand corner of the Notice and will be prefixed, SERIAL No. XL/____________.

2) A FULL POSTAL ADDRESS that we can correspond with, as all decisions are conveyed in a letter to the motorist.

3) The FULL NAME of the motorist.

If you are unable to locate the PARKING NOTICE SERIAL NUMBER we will require the full vehicle registration number of the vehicle to which the NOTICE was served.

Please be advised that Excel Parking Services Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any increase in the NOTICE CHARGE should YOU fail to provide us with the requested information within 7 (SEVEN) days from the date of this email.

Upon receipt of the required information we will place the NOTICE on hold while the circumstances surrounding the issue of the NOTICE are investigated and the Management team review the contents of your email. Once a decision has been reached, a letter will be issued to the motorist at the identified postal address conveying the outcome of the appeal/challenge. We will advise you in writing of any further course of action you should take, as deemed necessary to support your appeal/challenge.

BE ADVISED – WE ARE UNABLE TO PROCESS YOUR APPEAL/CHALLENGE WITHOUT THE PROVISION OF THE ABOVE REQUESTED INFORMATION – A PARKING NOTICE SERIAL NUMBER AND THE FULL NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DRIVER/HIRER/KEEPER.

If you have already provided all relevant information, then please accept our apologies and ignore this email, as we will be dealing with your appeal/challenge and notification of the outcome will be sent to you in due course.

ALL EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: CPO@excelparking.co.uk

Thank you for your co-operation.


Central Payment Office
Excel Parking Services Ltd

This communication is only for the use of the addressee. It may contain information which is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient you must not read, copy, distribute or disseminate this communication or any attachments to anyone other than the addressee or use the information it contains. If you receive this communication in error, please inform us by replying to this e-mail. No responsibility is accepted by Excel Parking Services Ltd. for personal e-mails, or e-mails unconnected with the firm's business.

I've noticed that they say they cannot process my appeal if I don't name the driver or give an address?
I haven't said I am the driver in the appeal email, only the keeper. Also I haven't wrote my address because they should already have my address if they sent me a PCN in the first place.
I take it this is just a stall tatic?
Any help?
Thanks

Redx

all you can do is wait

Umkomaas

Standard Excel template reply - we've seen it endless times!

If after 35 days you don't get a response - cancellation or rejection with POPLA code (nothing else will do ) - it's time to complain vociferously to the BPA and DVLA that Excel are not complying with the requirements of the BPA CoP and ask them to investigate.

Write to Excel to inform them that as they've not complied, you've asked the BPA and DVLA to investigate. And to ensure they don't think this is bluff on your part, copy them into both letters you've sent to BPA and DVLA. It's time their p/ssing people about comes to an end.

Dannnnnn

Ok thanks for the quick reply guys.
They really do take the biscuit !!

Umkomaas

Dannnnnn wrote: »

Ok thanks for the quick reply guys.
They really do take the biscuit !!

And they'll take your wallet too

Dannnnnn

Ok so instead of emailing me back they have sent the usual letter everyone seems to get and have given me a deadline to pay up. lol
They have given me my popla code so im moving to the next stage.
Any chance someone can just have a quick look at my my popla appeal before i send it off? Its a mix of Coupon-mads template and kenyonpool as his situation is similar to mine, although im not a disabled driver does the free kfc parking still apply ?

Thanks

Dear POPLA adjudicator,
I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd on 09/03/2014.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned.

The grounds for my appeal are as follows:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice section 19. Excel Parking Services Ltd (Excel) must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so Excel have no cause of action to pursue this charge. I specified in my original appeal that I would like to see a breakdown of the costs incurred by Excel as a result of the alleged breach. Excel have failed to provide this information, stating that the charge is in line with BPA guidelines and therefore “deemed reasonable”. This reply completely fails to demonstrate that the whole charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge can “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.
Excel cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe Excel are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown Excel supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to my next appeal point.

2) Legal capacity to issue parking charges
Excel have no proprietary interest in the land concerned and have not responded to a request for a copy of the contract with the landowner in which authority to pursue outstanding parking charges is granted, as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 7. In particular, the issue of the requirement set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f) : “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drives charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.
I require the unredacted landowner contract including any payments made between the parties, names & dates & details of all terms included. I suspect Excel are merely an employed site agent and this is nothing more than a commercial agreement between the two parties. There is nothing that could enable Excel to impact upon visiting drivers in their own right, for their own profit. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a mere “witness statement” instead of the relevant contract. There would be no proof that the alleged signatory can act on behalf of the landowner or has ever seen the relevant contract. Also a letter or statement would fail to show any payments made between the parties, and would omit dates & details of all terms in the actual contract - and so would fail to rebut my appeal point about the Operator's lack of standing & assignment of any rights.

3) ANPR - Inaccuracy and Non-compliance, including lack of ANPR data usage signs
I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times and yet I contend the driver was a customer of KFC.
In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''
No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with records and photos.

4) Unfair terms
The terms that the Operator is alleging create a contract, were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance - to my potential detriment. Therefore, this charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’
Further, the charge contravenes The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 :
Schedule 2 : Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair”
1(e) “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.”
5(1) ''A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999':
Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2:
5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.
19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'
I contend the above describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden'. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is in fact a disguised penalty, issued by a third party agent which is not the landowner and has no assignment of title. Such a charge would normally be restricted to the landowner themselves claiming for any damages or loss - which was nothing as the driver was in KFC which has free parking, if the driver had only been informed of that by clearer and transparent signage in the various areas of this car park. The charge of £100 imposed by Excel constitutes an unfair term as it is disproportionate with respect to the alleged infringement.
Yours,



Thanks

Redx

looks good to me , but I would add the 4 numbered appeal points as bullet points just before the main body of text as well

Guys_Dad

Change heading 2 to include "No valid contract" in heading