Excel parking notice, incorrect reg entered at ANPR site.

noppix

I need help guys, Im very good with gov parking fines as my father has a blue badge and keeps parking in the wrong place and I have to keep getting him off on the techs. But this one has got me stumpted for a way out!. I have a little down syndrome 3YO girl that is unwell and im finding it hard to read all the legal stuff.

:eek::(I parked on a Excel ran car park late December last year but I put the incorrect reg into the machine, the one I put in was from a car I sold over a year before, Got a PCN in the new year and have appealed, was asked to pay £10 for an admin charges but also provide the V5 of the old car (i did also dispute the £10 admin as i felt it was still a fine). I sent them a letter telling them I did not have the V5 as the car has been sold. They have now send a letter demanding £100 and a POPLA code. I intend to appeal to POPLA but what would be the best points to attack on as I understand that there are a few weak point I can use.

noppix

I still have the ticket i paid for.
I can scan and forward all the info to whoever can help.
thank you all

Stroma

There are lots of points you can use , but generally you only need 3 points

1) not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) no capacity or authority to issue these tickets
3) signage not adequate to form a contract

Look in the sticky thread by coupon mad on how to win at popla

Coupon-mad

A search finds these similar cases:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4745689

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4880841

...both cancelled by the landowner when the customer complained (but it was a retail park which makes it easier). And one of those links went to POPLA stage as well and has a strong POPLA appeal you can adapt & use.

noppix

thank you guys I will have a good read

noppix

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A search finds these similar cases:




...both cancelled by the landowner when the customer complained (but it was a retail park which makes it easier). And one of those links went to POPLA stage as well and has a strong POPLA appeal you can adapt & use.

I have been doing a lot of reading and I am putting together my POPLA appeal, Should I add this section or not as I entered the reg totally incorrect "EXCEL FAILED TO UNDERTAKE THEIR USUAL MANUAL REVIEW OF TICKETS"

thanks

spacey2012

POPLA do not take payment as an excuse even if you do everything correctly, the technical arguments version however does work, but you have to drop the rabbit to use it and forget mitigation.

noppix

so my best attack is going to be the basic 3 as shown above by storma

1) not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) no capacity or authority to issue these tickets
3) signage not adequate to form a contract

looking at the signage at the site there is no mention of ANPR use so I will put that in there too.

Thanks for all your help

noppix

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re Excel ticket number xxxxxxx POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx

This is my appeal as I am the driver of this car (already admitted) but I am not legally liable for the parking charge. In addition, the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice (ticket) also exceeded the appropriate amount.




NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Excel are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice as they suggest my emergency constituted a breach of contract. As such, they must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.I request Excel to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of £100.


Given that Excel charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


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.




No doubt Excel will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.'' My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant

Since I paid and displayed and no damage was caused, there can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Excel lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGEDue to their high position, bright colours, distracting pictograms and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Excel are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into the car park. I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs and machines in that car park (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.


CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NO LOCUS STANDI
Excel do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Excel has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Excel to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Excel and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked):

In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'

I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. Excel cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.




NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER AND UNFAIR TERMSThere is no contract between Excel and myself but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

Unfair Terms
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.''

Clearly it is patently unfair for a firm to state in a published article that they have a set procedure. This would seem to me to be a clear breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.




UNRELIABLE, UNSYNCHRONISED, NON-COMPLIANT ANPR SYSTEM

I require the Operator to present records which prove:

- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.

- 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.

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.''

At this location, Excel fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As excel place no signs advising the use of an ANPR system to see from a moving vehicle on arrival there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all. . 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.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .


On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with the CPUTR 2008, the UTCCR 1999, the Equality Act 2010 and basic contract law.

It is unfair and punitive and, as such, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

noppix

Is this a good enough appeal and should I add the ticket I purchased in error to the appeal?.

Do I need to point out that I purchased a ticket with the incorrect reg number on it?.

Are there any more points I could add to this that would make it more compliacted for Excel?

Thank you all for your help

noppix

ANPR site, incorrect reg typed into ticket machine.

I would appreciate some feedback.

Thanks









Dear POPLA adjudicator,

POPLA appeal re Excel ticket number xxxxxxx POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx

This is my appeal as I am the driver of this car (already admitted) but I am not legally liable for the parking charge. In addition, the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice (ticket) also exceeded the appropriate amount.




NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
Excel are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice as they suggest my emergency constituted a breach of contract. As such, they must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.I request Excel to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of £100.


Given that Excel charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


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.




No doubt Excel will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.'' My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant

Since I paid and displayed and no damage was caused, there can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Excel lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGEDue to their high position, bright colours, distracting pictograms and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms Excel are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into the car park. I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs and machines in that car park (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.


CONTRACT WITH LANDOWNER - NO LOCUS STANDI
Excel do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Excel has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Excel to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Excel and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked):

In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'

I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. Excel cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.




NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER AND UNFAIR TERMSThere is no contract between Excel and myself but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

Unfair Terms
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.''

Clearly it is patently unfair for a firm to state in a published article that they have a set procedure. This would seem to me to be a clear breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.




UNRELIABLE, UNSYNCHRONISED, NON-COMPLIANT ANPR SYSTEM

I require the Operator to present records which prove:

- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.

- 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.

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.''

At this location, Excel fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As excel place no signs advising the use of an ANPR system to see from a moving vehicle on arrival there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all. . 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.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .


On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with the CPUTR 2008, the UTCCR 1999, the Equality Act 2010 and basic contract law.

It is unfair and punitive and, as such, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.