Excel parking notice, incorrect reg entered at ANPR site.

Umkomaas

noppix wrote: »

Would it be advisable to use this line in the POPLA appeal if it was not in my PPC appeal: 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

Put whatever you wish, there are no rules that prevent you adding points to your POPLA appeal that did not appear in your first appeal to the PPC (obviously don't add points that contradict your first appeal).

ColliesCarer

What did you raise in your 1st appeal letter?
If you raised no authority even if you didn't specifically ask for a copy of the contract - you could say something like "have failed to address this point in my appeal to them and provided no evidence that they have a contract ......."

noppix

ColliesCarer wrote: »

What did you raise in your 1st appeal letter?
If you raised no authority even if you didn't specifically ask for a copy of the contract - you could say something like "have failed to address this point in my appeal to them and provided no evidence that they have a contract ......."

Having not visited this site i simply told them that I had purchased a parking voucher but had put the incorrect reg on it thinking they would revoke the PCN upon getting that info,,, how wrong was I!

noppix

Umkomaas wrote: »

You have to be careful with Case Law, because if you don't understand it, or worse, haven't even read the cases cited, then it can make appeals look a bit silly if they are quoted out of context.

Best sticking to tried and tested (and winning) simple appeal points about which you are confident in their context and meaning.

The main ones - no GPEOL, no authority to enter contracts with motorists, unenforceable penalty, signage, ANPR accuracy - are well documented in templates and are pretty invincible at POPLA.


HTH

I`m glad you pointed this out to me as after looking at some of the cases quoted on the appeal I found there are indeed errors as you described.

ColliesCarer

noppix wrote: »

Having not visited this site i simply told them that I had purchased a parking voucher but had put the incorrect reg on it thinking they would revoke the PCN upon getting that info,,, how wrong was I!

Yep don't worry - we all think we're dealing with reasonable people till we find out just what scumbags we were dealing with but your POPLA appeal will sort that out.

You can raise any new appeal points - but regarding evidence etc that you wouldn't have asked for before just phrase things as "I have seen no evidence that ... " or "I require Excell to provide ....."

ColliesCarer

I know you have a lot on your plate - but just take your time and don't rush it - you have plenty of time to get this sorted before the deadline.

I know it can all make your head spin - that's why it's important not to rush it - don't try to do it all at once - take a break from it and come back to it another time if your head starts to buzz - because our brains need time to process this stuff before we get that - ahhhhhhhh now I get it! moment.

Take a look at the link below of winning POPLA appeals - but go to the last page for the most recent and work backwards - look for ones to do with Excel and see what wins.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Another way of finding useful information is to use the "Search the Forum" function (in the green band on the first page of the forum over on the right - try putting in the name of the particular car park - or just Excel - cut and past into word or notepad examples you like the look of to refer back to later.

noppix

this is my appeal so far and all of the quoted data has been checked.

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd on DD/MM/YYYY. 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 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”. Excell 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”.


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]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. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]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 following from the parking event. [/FONT]

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 I have not seen any evidence 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.


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 unredacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

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.

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 paid for parking. The charge of £100 imposed by Excel constitutes an unfair term as it is disproportionate with respect to the alleged infringement.

yours,


The registered keeper's name

Redx

certainly looks good to me , if you compare it to this core template https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

noppix

ColliesCarer wrote: »

I know you have a lot on your plate - but just take your time and don't rush it - you have plenty of time to get this sorted before the deadline.

I know it can all make your head spin - that's why it's important not to rush it - don't try to do it all at once - take a break from it and come back to it another time if your head starts to buzz - because our brains need time to process this stuff before we get that - ahhhhhhhh now I get it! moment.

Take a look at the link below of winning POPLA appeals - but go to the last page for the most recent and work backwards - look for ones to do with Excel and see what wins.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Another way of finding useful information is to use the "Search the Forum" function (in the green band on the first page of the forum over on the right - try putting in the name of the particular car park - or just Excel - cut and past into word or notepad examples you like the look of to refer back to later.

Sorry I did not see your new post before putting mine online. I have had a look at the POPLA result page but I will now go back and study further as you have suggested.

noppix

Redx wrote: »

certainly looks good to me , if you compare it to this core template https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

I`m getting there but I still want to add more so im just reading