Excel parking notice, incorrect reg entered at ANPR site.

noppix

Thanks Umkomaas.

I will send in the appeal this afternoon if there are no further comments or errors found on it.

Thank you all.

ColliesCarer

Hi Noppix,

That's absolutely excellent

Given the assessors can sometimes miss the point, I would just suggest one final small adjustment so the assessor is completely clear that the challenge on the PPC's legal authority is not about whether they can issue parking charges, as even you or I could do that, but is about whether they can pursue those charges through the courts in their own name.

So would suggest the heading on point 2 becomes

2) Legal capacity to pursue parking charges through the courts in their own name

And change the last line of the 1st paragraph of point 2 from

I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.

To
I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge through the courts in their own name.

Other than that the rest is super.

noppix

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Hi Noppix,

That's absolutely excellent

Given the assessors can sometimes miss the point, I would just suggest one final small adjustment so the assessor is completely clear that the challenge on the PPC's legal authority is not about whether they can issue parking charges, as even you or I could do that, but is about whether they can pursue those charges through the courts in their own name.

So would suggest the heading on point 2 becomes

2) Legal capacity to pursue parking charges through the courts in their own name

And change the last line of the 1st paragraph of point 2 from

I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.

To
I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge through the courts in their own name.

Other than that the rest is super.

Thanks for that, I have change the parts as advised and am now in the process of filling out the POPLA appeal form.

noppix

Here are the revised appeal notes, just incase any person wishes to use them.

noppix

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd on xx/xx/xxxx.

The grounds for my appeal are as follows :

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2) Legal capacity to pursue parking charges through the courts in their own name.
3) ANPR - Inaccuracy and Non-compliance, including lack of ANPR data usage signs
4) 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 the driver.
5)Unfair terms.
6)Unlawful penalty charge




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”.


In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79, there is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, 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”.

The finding of Colman J in Lordsvale Finance Plc -v- Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752 was that “whether a provision is to be treated as a penalty is a matter of construction to be resolved by asking whether at the time the contract was entered into the predominant contractual function of the provisions was to deter a party from breaking the contract or to compensate the innocent part for the breach [...] deduced by comparing the amount that would be payable on breach with the loss that might be sustained if breach occurred”.


[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]


The OFT on Unfair Contract Terms:

18(a): Unfair financial burdens

'18.1.3 ...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.

It would normally be for the owner to claim for loss, and it is unfair to attempt to make a party pay excessively for an event that would normally be 'breach of contract'. The charge is neither a genuine pre-estimate of loss nor a genuine offer regarding any 'contractual fee for parking'. It is an unenforceable disguised penalty.


This charge from Excel as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty.
Although a different operator, in the case of Parking Eye v Smith at Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.


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 pursue parking charges through the courts in their own name

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 through the courts in their own name.

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) 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 the driver

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.


5)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.


6)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.


yours,

noppix

A big thank you to all of you that have helped me with this BS issue.

I will report back once I get the POPLA decision.

I was going to stick around and help out but it seems I may be generating more work for you guys rather than being of any help. Sorry about that.

Also a big thanks to Couponmad for all the sticky information and the template I used to help me.

Kind regards

Noppix

Coupon-mad

I would prune all the references to parking Eye cases as it's obviously a PE template you've used. And remove this paragraph as the template bluster about commercial justification' is ONLY about PE!


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.


Here's an example where it adds in that Excel failed to undertake their usual 'manual review'

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62187053#Comment_62187053

I like that one as it quotes Excel's own spokesperson!

Umkomaas

I think this might have moved on a bit C-m. This is an offshoot of the original thread, although the OP needs to take your comments above into account and review his latest POPLA draft.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4939933

If we ever needed one, this is a classic example why ALL posts relating to the one incident should be detailed ONLY on the one thread.

Duplicate threads lead to duplicate effort on the part of regular contributors and lead to the potential for serious confusion for all, with the possibility of things becoming costly if errors are made as a result.

noppix

This one was won at POPLA. Thanks again to all that helped me with this parking charge.

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

ColliesCarer

Congratulations - pleased to hear you won your appeal :T