Ticket for parking in my own bay?!

Dee140157

No Authority:
The driver is the owner of the space parked in, permission had been granted through the lease. Title number HP666791 shows that flat and parking space as the property. The lease dated 20th December 2006 only requirement regarding the parking space is clause 5.3.3 which states “Not to use the Parking Space for any purpose other than the parking of a private fully taxed insured and roadworthy motor vehicle not exceeding 1.5 tonnes”. There is no requirement to display a parking permit. The lease cannot be altered to include the requirement to display a permit unless all leesees agree.

b) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely “parking without displaying a valid permit” consequently I contend, and the BPA code of practice states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss.


The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA 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.

On the day in question, the driver had parked in the correct bay which is owned by the driver, there was no damage or obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged) and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v New Garage Motor co (1915), Lord Dunedin stated that a stipulation "will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and "there is an assumption that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

As the charge in this case is the same lump sum whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or for 24 hours and the same amount are charged for any alleged contravention, it is clear that this is punitive and that no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case, as stated earlier, no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner.

2. UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
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 driver. Following the receipt of the parking notice charge the driver/ owner and I looked for the signage at the entrance to the car park and found none. I enclose photographs of the entrance area to prove this.


There is no entrance sign to the land and thus no warning that a driver is entering a managed parking area. A driver cannot therefore be expected to look for other signs, especially if they are not visible from the driver’s side of the car. When we did locate the signs there were only two, one at either end of the car park which are not visible in the driver’s eye line. The signs are so high that there was no chance a driver arriving would see them, let alone be able to read them at a distance.

The sign also states ‘TERMS OF PARKING WITHOUT PERMISSION’, as the driver/ owner clearly had permission to park on their land, then this therefore nulls any further conditions stated on the sign.

Now I am not sure if that covers it all and I have not altered any numbering or anything, but this is much more the gist of what you need.

Dee140157

To be fair this is probably too short now, but I really can't plough through everything and copy and paste bits here and there.

Please look at alternative POPLA templates linked to by CM in the newbie thread to get a feel for a good length.

Your first and should be winning point is the landowner authority issue/ contract which I have probably cut too much.
Your second should be no GPEOL
Your third, signage
Then if you wish something on UTCCRs
Then a one (or two at most) paragraph summary.

I was rather forlorn in the hope someone else would do this. You can see from the responses of the regulars here that this really is too much effort for people who give up their free time to help others.

Either post a sensible length appeal for checking or if you wish to be this verbose at POPLA, risk losing because the assessor can't find the patience to read such a ridiculously long appeal,when as several people say, this would simply be thrown out in court.

Sparsholt

Hi Everyone
Just to let you know the appeal was allowed by POPLA and UK CPM have been ordered to cancel the Parking Ticket. Received the results today by email, didn't even have to go to a hearing.


Thanks for all the help especially Coupon-Mad.

The_Deep

If you have not already done so, you may wish to send a cease and desist letter to the PPC threatening fire and brimstone if they trespass suchly again, copying the adjudication to the MA and all your neighbours, Pin a copy to the front of all their parking notices. v

Marktheshark

If you have a working template now that only needs a stamp or mouse click , I would throw the permit in the bin and start collecting tickets.
See who gets fed up first.
even if they win at popla, you are leasehold and therefore they have no contract to run a businesses on your land, let alone charge you for parking on your own land.

See how long it takes them to get the point.