Help with P4parking (at popla stage)

kingpin99

Hi all,

So i was visiting my cousin like usual. Never got a ticket before in the area always parked without a permit for years, as they don't have resident permits.

Went to the management company for the estate to tell them to cancel it, but was told they can't do anything.

so i had to appeal and i used this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou and sent a appeal.

This is the reply i got from nighthawk:

http:// imgur.com/a/GmHyD

With a popla verifaction code.



This was the sign http:// i.imgur.com/ZtgisDd.jpg


This is my appeal:

Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA XXXXXXXXXXXX


Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Date of Issue: xxxxxxxxxx
Company in question: P4Parking Ltd

On the above date, I (the keeper of the vehicle) was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

1. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
2. Inappropriate parking charge

1. No contract with the site that permits levying charges

The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. However, I have the reasonable belief that P4Parking has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. I therefore require P4Parking to supply and POPLA to review:

• A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
• A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
• A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
• Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car where the car in question was parked.

Furthermore, I require that the P4Parking show POPLA proof that they have the right to charge and pursue motorists (including threats of debt recovery and court action).

2. Inappropriate parking charge

The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. 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.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.

I require P4Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform P4Parking to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXX

Can i add anymore?
thanks

ColliesCarer

Here are your clicky links

http://imgur.com/a/GmHyD

http://i.imgur.com/ZtgisDd.jpg

Overall my feedback would be that it needs strengthening.

There are also a couple of extra points you could include which are
3) non-compliant signage and 4) Unfair Terms.

take a look at this link re an OP that recently won against this PPC at POPLA on no gpeol. A lot of the advice in it applies to you and theres a link in it from Coupon-Mad (in post #38 I think) to a POPLA appeal on pepipoo which although was drafted against Parking Eye is very adaptable for your appeal.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64985447#Comment_64985447

Regarding my feedback on strengthening - the challenges you are making are not as clear and robust as they could be e.g. rather than wording such as "I have a reasonable belief that ..." you might want to substitute "I assert that...." or "It is my contention that...." etc

Take a look at the wording used in the pepipoo example linked from the link I gave you above.

Regarding point 2 - I would suggest you also amend the heading to include the no Gpeol point your making in the body of the point so that it doesn't get overlooked.
e.g.
2. Inappropriate parking charge and not a genuine pre estimate of loss

Also the only mention of GPEOL is in the BPA CoP wording you have quoted and it does not come over strongly enough that it is actually a challenge that you are making that this is not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

In the introduction to this section you also need to state the wording used on the signage/NtK that indicates they are alleging breach of terms and therefore the charge needs to be a GPEOL.

In addition - although you have asked for evidence, you haven't really stated/made clear what challenge you are actually making and you need to ensure there is a robust statement what that is.

Hope that helps - post up your redraft before submitting for final comment/proof reading

Umkomaas

From their letter (image 1), verbatim:

The contravention you have been breached with specifically is for....

!!!!!! is that?

fisherjim

What a pathetic attempt at a scary letter:

'Nighthawk Parking has the authority to charge any vehicle that is parked contrary to these regulations'

I know people give their cars names but well I never!

And what regulations has the said vehicle breached? :rotfl:

kingpin99

I will amend it and post it on here later.

Thanks for the quick reply

kingpin99

Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA XXXXXXXXXXXX


Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Date of Issue: xxxxxxxxxx
Company in question: Nighthawk Parking (Trading name of P4Parking (UK) Ltd)

On the above date, I (the keeper of the vehicle) was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

1. Inappropriate parking charge and not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
3. Non-compliant signage
4. Unfair Terms

1. Inappropriate parking charge and not a genuine pre estimate of loss

The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner.
There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. P4Parking notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event.

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.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.

I require P4Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges

The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. However, I assert that P4Parking has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. I therefore require P4Parking to supply and POPLA to review:

• A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
• A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
• A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
• Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car where the car in question was parked.

Furthermore, I require that the P4Parking show POPLA proof that they have the right to charge and pursue motorists (including threats of debt recovery and court action).


3. Non-compliant signage


4. Unfair Terms
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.’

The terms that the Operator in this case are alleging gave rise to a contract were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance to my potential detriment. District Enforcement may argue that they do not have to show their 'contractual charge' related to any loss, but they do have to show that it was not an unfair term in law. There is no contract between the Operator & motorist but even if POPLA believes there was likely to be a contract, then it is unfair in that the signage was neither specific nor transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

I contend this describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden' which produces the same effect as a penalty clause. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is clearly a disguised penalty issued by a third party which has no cause of action in this instance and, in any case, is not the landowner and has no assignment of title.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform P4Parking to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXXXXXXXX



Here but i don't know what to write about the signage
Need a paragraph
can someone help please

da_rule

Try this paragraph:

I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because P4Parking are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) P4Parking have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.