Help with POPLA Appeal

bigp26

da_rule wrote: »

This looks ok. You have the PCN number on there twice though at the top.

It covers the key points. Give it a while before you post it to see if anyone else has anything else to raise.

Any additional help would be very much appreciated! I am running out of days before the penalty goes to £100!

Kind Regards,
P.

bigp26

BUMP - Please could somebody assist?

Coupon-mad

bigp26 wrote: »

My father wants to just pay the fine and get it over with

It is not a fine. To pay would be stupid. The controlled zone signs are Council ones for the road, surely (you haven't shown a close up). Where was the PPC sign?

bigp26 wrote: »

Any additional help would be very much appreciated! I am running out of days before the penalty goes to £100!

It's not a penalty and it doesn't go to £100 because you won't be paying. The deadline you need to have your eye on is your POPLA deadline not the stupid drivel about paying money. That's why in the NEWBIES thread there's a link to the Parking Cowboys POPLA code checker, so you can see your use-by date.

I am concerned you are rushing it when there is no need as long as you know your POPLA expiry date to get the appeal in. Here are your pics:

Ticket - http://s1304.photobucket.com/user/bigp26/media/upload6_zpse0b7caa7.jpg.html

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/image_zps007e70e3.jpeg

Location & lack of signs:

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/Upload2_zps8b47f945.jpg

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/Upload3_zpse8f112c3.jpg

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/Upload1_zpsd5c83ca1.jpg

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5454_zps1bcaa418.jpg

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5453_zps711c507e.jpg

The controlled zone signs in the background look like Council signs leading out on to the public highway. Why are there no PPC signs or have they copied the Controlled Zone sign appearance? Where are the signs telling people about the terms of parking & risk of a PCN? What close up 'signage wording' pics did you get, if any?

Reply from PPS makes it clear this is a 'breach of contract' allegation because parking is apparently only for permit holders (how could you know?):

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/Upload4_zpsb38084bc.jpg

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/PPSsign_zps6a41976f.jpg

The good thing about that is that they must show it's a GPEOL, because parking by other drivers is NOT 'offered for a fee'. It's not allowed, so they must show their charge is a GPEOL.

But I reckon your 'no signs' appeal point needs to be much stronger - and focus on the fact that NO signs were seen, see attached photos, so there was no contract formed with the driver. The heading should be 'no signs in vicinity - no contract formed with driver' (not 'lack of BPA compliant signage').

bigp26

Hi Coupon-mad,

Firstly I would like to thank you for the time you have spent looking at my post. It is very much appreciated.


I have checked the POPLA deadline checked and can confirm that I have 15 days to respond.


Having read your comments, I have a couple of questions on the following paragraph:

“The good thing about that is that they must show it's a GPEOL, because parking by other drivers is NOT 'offered for a fee'. It's not allowed, so they must show their charge is a GPEOL.”

1) You mention that they must show it is a GPEOL. How do we know that they are claiming for direct losses for trespass/breach of contract and not liquidated damages?

2) You say that parking by other drivers is not offered for a fee. Surely the permits to park must be considered as this fee though?


I also went back to the road of discussion today and took the following photos/made the following observations:

1) Entrance of Rodwell Close (left hand side):

i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5683_zps4188de48.jpg

As you can see, there is a “Zone Ends” sign here. This must relate to the road where I took the picture from i.e. the road leading onto Rodwell Close. This therefore explains the “Controlled Zone” sign which can be seen in my previous photos (this “Controlled Zone” is on the other side of this signpost). You can also see another sign which has been cable tied onto the signpost regarding the restrictions in question for Rodwell Close. This seems rather unprofessional and shabby to me - is such a sign good enough?

2) Entrance of Rodwell Close (right hand side):

i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5684_zpsd7555d31.jpg

This is the sign on the other side of the entrance of the road. In the distance, below the satellite dish and on the left of the grey box thing on the wall, you can see the sign of which a PDF was provided to me in the email responding to my appeal.

Photo of sign on wall:

i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5682_zpsc0e92ee0.jpg

I have noticed that 2 of the first sentences on this sign read:

"Unauthorised parking by means of not showing a Clearly Displayed valid parking permit in the windscreen, will result in a parking charge noticed of £100 being issues (reduced to £60 if payment received within 14 days)

Vehicles must not be parked on yellow lines/footpaths and not cause an obstruction of any kind"

Now, considering there were no yellow lines/foothpaths parked on and no obstruction was made does that mean that I therefore did not breach contract or is it the case that only 1 of the 2 restrictions (1 of the 2 sentences) needs to be breached?


As I mentioned in my previous post, there were no road markings to signify permit parking bays or restrictions etc. Is it a requirement for bays/yellow lines to be on the road in areas of restriction such as this?

One last query; in what format are exhibits provided to POPLA? Are they uploaded as part of the appeal or would it be ok to provide links to PhotoBucket?


Hope you all having a fantastic weekend!
Thank you again,

P.

ColliesCarer

Firstly here's your links to your extra photos - apologies for the rather long post but hope it answers your questions and gives you a few pointers

http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5683_zps4188de48.jpg
http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5684_zpsd7555d31.jpg
http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s525/bigp26/IMG_5682_zpsc0e92ee0.jpg

Most of your questions are answered by the following:

You've entered the twilight zone of "PPC-world"! They make up the rules.

The rules are set up to try to trap enough people to issue ludicrous charges to - so they can make a huge profit (and give the bung to the nosy neighbour who nips out and does their ticketing taking a photo on their mobile).

so e.g Is it a requirement for bays/yellow lines to be on the road in areas of restriction such as this? The answer is ...... yes you've guessed it - Nope - they make up the rules!

So forget about trying to relate this to the real world of Road traffic Acts and what road signs councils must use etc etc.

But where the real world does catch up with them is the BPA CoP, POFA 2012, contract law and the POPLA appeal grounds.

Signage
To be relied on as having formed a contract - all terms and conditions must be readable, understood and agreed to by any driver (elderly, disabled, short sighted etc etc) on entering the area and in any lighting, all weather conditions etc etc

Points I noticed
Signs on posts
- Only a sign on left (on the post) as street is entered - driver turning right into the road wouldn't see it and would only see the "Control Zone ends" sign
- I presume by the cable tied sign you mean the sign on the left pole with the blue/white P saying it's a permit holders only area - the main thing to check with that is whether all terms and conditions are included - (and it doesn't look like they are to me but you could do with a readable close up) - because if not the signs on the walls are the only reference to them and the following points apply

Wall signs
- only two at head of street - located so high up no driver would see them on entering the street - none in near vicinity to area you parked
(I counted 33 courses of bricks up to bottom of sign on right. This means the bottom of the signs were between approx 2.5 - 2.8 metres ( or 8 - 9 feet in old money) off the ground depending on size of bricks and possible 9.5 - 10.5 feet to top of sign - I obtained est. distances from the link below)

http://www.ibstock.com/pdfs/technical-support/TIS-09-Brickwork-dimensions-tables.pdf

- have to walk across grass verges, stand in a flower bed and take a step ladder to stand any chance of reading them! And even then the font is so small you probably still have trouble. Are we all expected to carry binoculars?
- one on wall on left which would be obscured by the tree from a driver having entered the street) and the one on the right.
- check the dimensions of the sign they gave you a diagram of and estimate how small the fonts would be etc etc (I get < 2.5 cm for largest print, <1.25 cm for details in box and about 0.5 cm for the line at the bottom saying "Do not park here unless you agree to........" - readable from the pavement almost 10 feet up? err - I don't think so!)

Those are the kind of things you need to look for and they are the things to raise in your "no/inadequate signage in the vicinity - no contract with driver formed" section. (important to link it to bit in bold).

You can raise these by saying something like ".....none seen at the time. Having revisited the location to check I note....."

You assert they are not adequate giving reasons - they have to prove they are - creates work for them producing maps/photos examples of signs etc - the more work you can make for them the better - because either they don't bother at all or maybe they make mistakes/tell lies - err or do I mean are economical with the truth? etc etc

So just to also cover the other questions you raised

1) You mention that they must show it is a GPEOL. How do we know that they are claiming for direct losses for trespass/breach of contract and not liquidated damages?

The fact that they are defining an amount on the signs means they are trying to claim this was pre agreed sum for breach of the t&C's of parking i.e. liquidated damages - a sum agreed in advance to cover the breach - but it must be justifiable as a loss - they can't hence no GPEOL

2) You say that parking by other drivers is not offered for a fee. Surely the permits to park must be considered as this fee though?

Well you don't know whether the permits are free or have to be bought - and it doesn't matter regarding the point being made which is non permit holders can't park - therefore the sum is for breaching that condition.
(And the loss they would have to justify is £100 minus a pro rata %ge of the cost of permit - which could be and probably is zero. Think in terms of a Pay&Display that you had parked in but hadn't paid - if the fee should have been £5 then the loss is £5 - not £100 and for a free car park the loss is £0). Btw use the upper figure of £100 - not the discounted rate of £60,

If it said non-permit holders can purchase a day permit for fee of £20 please pay at machine - that would be a contractual term. So despite the wording at the bottom of the sign - this is a breach of contract model and not a contractual fee model.

One your last query;
In what format are exhibits provided to POPLA? Are they uploaded as part of the appeal or would it be ok to provide links to PhotoBucket?

Links not ok - uploading jpeg files as evidence, including your photos into a pdf file with your appeal etc are all other options you could use. Think they also accept CD's but not memory sticks. See POPLA web site FAQ's


Also you have already identified yourself as driver in your appeal - you need to make sure your POPLA appeal matches up and isn't relying on points only the keeper could make

bigp26

Wow - thank you for your amazingly helpful post ColiersCarer! I am slowly but surely understanding a bit more about all of this!

A couple of initial thoughts/queries:

1) "The fact that they are defining an amount on the signs means they are trying to claim this was pre agreed sum for breach of the t&C's of parking i.e. liquidated damages - a sum agreed in advance to cover the breach - but it must be justifiable as a loss - hence no GPEOL”

Da-rule mentioned that they must show that the charge is a GPEOL. You say that the cost of liquidated damages must be justifiable as a loss, hence NO GPEOL. Are you therefore saying that they don’t have to show that their charge is a GPEOL?

2) “Also you have already identified yourself as driver in your appeal - you need to make sure your POPLA appeal matches up and isn't relying on points only the keeper could make”

What do you mean by this? I understand that I had made a mistake by making my appeal to the PPC by talking as “the driver” however I don’t understand when you say “to make sure your POPLA appeal matches up”. Would you be able to provide me with an example please?


Thanks all for sticking with me - I appreciate that some of my questions may come across silly however I want to understand everything myself before I have another go at drafting a letter for POPLA appeal.

Happy Sunday!
P.

ColliesCarer

re Cost of permits - take a look at Borough of Hillingdon web site - parking permit page linked below says residents get 1 free permit and 10 free visitors vouchers/annum.
Extra permits/visitor vouchers can be purchase for £40 quid(£0.11p a day) and sheet of 10 vouchers for a £5 (£0.50 a day)
Phone call to council might also identify on what authority PPS are managing (oops mis-managing) this scheme

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/18131

ColliesCarer

Are you therefore saying that they don’t have to show that their charge is a GPEOL?

No I'm saying that they must justify it as a GPEOL but because it's so extortionate they can't - so NO GPEOL means you assert that £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. (I've edited my post above to make it clearer)

2) “Also you have already identified yourself as driver in your appeal - you need to make sure your POPLA appeal matches up and isn't relying on points only the keeper could make”

When you identified yourself as driver in effect you removed keeper liability because they can only pursue the keeper if the driver is unknown. You responded to a windscreen ticket so they never had to get keeper details from the DVLA and so POFA 2012 doesn't really apply

1st example is your opening sentence "I am the registered keeper...."

Another examples is in 3rd para of point 3)
"Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.'"

See what others think but this point may well now be moot

and there's also

"The registered keeper believes...."

Coupon-mad

"Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.'"

That sentence should be removed anyway as it's not true (comes from an old template).

Because you have already written as the driver, just write the draft as the driver as well, so change 'registered keeper' to 'driver' and get rid of stuff about 'keeper liability' as you can't hide behind the POFA2012 as you've admitted you were driving. Show us the new draft if you like - nearly there!

You will win on 'no GPEOL' or 'no standing' or 'no signage' (all of which are strongly in your favour in this case). Those signs are pants - and when this is all over you may like to also tip the Council off that this firm has defaced and confused the effect of their 'Zone ends' pole with a non-statutory sign relating to private land beyond.

bigp26

Hi All,

Just a special thanks to both Coupon-mad and ColliesCarer who have been absolutely amazing in providing me with support for this matter!

I have had another go at drafting my POPLA appeal letter as below. Your comments and suggestions are much appreciated!

Kind Regards,
P.

---

PCN No: xxxxxx
POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxx

POPLA Postal Address

My Details
Issued: 15 March 2014
Reg.

30 March 2014.

Dear POPLA,

I am the driver of vehicle with registration number xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge as issued on 15 March 2014 by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.


1) No signage in vicinity – no contract with driver formed

The driver entered the road where there was an absence of signage in the vicinity. Along with the fact that multiple other cars were parked on the same road, the driver was lead to believe that the zone was unrestricted. To be clear, the driver neither saw any signs nor knew about any terms & conditions which governed the road where the alleged parking violation occurred.

Having revisited the location, I noted that the one sign which was cable tied to a council “Control Zone Ends” sign was only visible if approaching Rodwell Close from the left hand side. There was no such signage on the opposite side (which also has a “Control Zone Ends” sign, and therefore I would have not seen this as I approached Rodwell Close from the right. Please note that pictures of these signs have been attached. Upon closer inspection of this cable tied sign, I notice that it does not contain any terms and conditions and hence even if I had seen this, a contract would not have been formed: to be relied on as having formed a contract, all terms and conditions must be readable, understood and agreed to by any driver (elderly, disabled, short sighted etc) on entering the area and in any lighting and all weather conditions.

Upon further inspection of the area, I noticed that 2 very small signs were available on the walls to the left and right just as Rodwell Close is entered. These are however located very high up (I would estimate over 3 metres), and would require a driver to walk across grass verges, stand in a flowerbed and use a ladder to read the text within them. Even if such extreme measures were taken, the font was so small that most people would still struggle to read such text.
As well as this, none such signs were available in the vicinity to where I had parked, which was approximately half way down the road.

Please can I also draw your attention to the example sign which was provided by Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd in response to my original appeal. Using the measurements of the sign as provided, I have estimated that the largest print on this sign will be less than 2.5cm, the print within the box outlining the contract will be less than 1.25cm, and the line at the bottom reading “Do not park here unless you agree to the terms & conditions displayed” is less than 0.5cm. To insist that such text is readable from the pavement approximately 10 feet below the sign is ridiculous and unacceptable. As such, I reiterate my point and appeal that no contract with the driver was formed as there was an absence of signage in the vicinity of the alleged parking violation (please also see attached photos).


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

The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

The £100 charge asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the road or “car park” is apparently for parking permit holders only. The Borough of Hillingdon’s website also states that residents receive 1 free parking permit and 10 free visitor parking vouchers per annum. It also states that additional permits can be purchased for £40 (equating to 11p per day), and an additional sheet of 10 vouchers can be purchased for £5 (equating to 50p per day). In the appeal Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.

For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has suffered as a result of the car being parked on the road or “car park” is required and should add up to £100.

Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.


3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd’s lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowners and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I do not believe that Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers.

I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant.

In addition, Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge

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 (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking eye. The driver expects Parking Eye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

Kind Regards,
FirstName LastName.