NTK arrival late....advice please

Coupon-mad

Yes, the sign talks about 'contravention' so they have to show a GPEOL. And as the NTK was sent late and isn't worded in compliance with Schedule 4 you can say 'No keeper liability' like this version:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65278839#Comment_65278839

And in fact the unclear signage and other paragraphs there are all applicable in your case. For instance, the wording on the sign is unclear and woolly; it sayS:

'This car park is a customer only facility for use while using the venue only & authorised vehicles/permit holders (if applicable).'

So what does that mean then?? As they've put '&' in between the phrases, it suggests to a reasonable person that:

1. It's a free car park for customers (no other requirements, no permits needed)

AND

2. Who knows what they mean about permit holders - if applicable?! It's a joke...makes no sense and creates no clear contract!

So have a look at paragraph 3 in this example I wrote recently, which also talks about a loosely-worded sign and the fact that bad drafting of signage wording is their problem under the doctrine of contra proferentem, and as such the interpretation that favours the consumer must prevail.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65365359#Comment_65365359

I'd suggest a POPLA appeal put together from those two examples I have linked.

watmb01

Can one of you guys check this out please. any thoughts?



POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Reg: xxxxxxx
PPC: XXXXX Ltd
PCN Ref: xxxxxxxxx
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN: xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam.
On xx xxx 2014 a Penalty Charge Notice was attached to my vehicle by XXX Ltd requiring payment for a charge of £60 payable within 14 days and £100 thereafter for an alleged parking contravention.
I wish to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'contravening terms' and the rejection letter mentions 'breach' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event. The demand for £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it exceeds the BPA’s own Code of Practice which states:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract...this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2. Contract with the landowner - not compliant with the BPA code of practice and/or no legal status to offer parking or enforce charges
XXXXX Ltd have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents.
I require XXXXX Ltd. to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.






3. Unclear signage - no contract with driver to pay £100 under these circumstances
'This car park is a customer only facility for use while using the venue only & authorised vehicles/permit holders (if applicable).'
What are authorized vehicles/permit holders? and how are members of the public to know what would be applicable or in fact if?
No mention of payment to park therefore implying it to be free.

4. Non compliant with POFA 2012
No mention of POFA 2012 on any signage or Notice to Keeper.
Notice To Keeper arrival outside of 56 day deadline.
Therefore as registered keeper I accept no liability for this ticket.

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours Faithfully, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]DRIVER'S NAME[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

That will win, I would maybe increase what you say about the signage to this:


3. Unclear signage - no contract with driver to pay £100 under these circumstances
The sign says: 'This car park is a customer only facility for use while using the venue only & authorised vehicles/permit holders (if applicable).'
Those words are so unclear they are incapable of forming a contract to pay £100 for parking there. What are 'authorized vehicles/permit holders', where is the requirement to show any such permit, and where does 'a customer using the venue' fall into this alleged contract as no permit is mentioned in that regard? How are members of the public to know what would be 'applicable' or in fact when that arises? There is also no mention of payment to park therefore implying it to be free for customers.

It is drafted in such an unclear way that the doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation which favours me as a consumer must prevail.

watmb01

Just like to say a big thank you to everyone who helped me with my appeal!
Just got my cancellation from the parking co. Heard nothing from POPLA is that the norm? Or should I get notice and the reason ?

ColliesCarer

Congratulations watmb01 :T

I would say it looks like the PPC have thrown in the towel early as it seems a bit soon for your POPLA appeal to have been assessed yet - especially as I think they are running a bit behind.

But no matter - you have your cancellation and that's what counts.

If the PPC haven't informed POPLA they've cancelled and the assessment goes ahead you will win it anyway as they won't send in any evidence and you'll hear from POPLA in due course.

watmb01

Have just received notification from popla informing me the ppc have cancelled the parking notice. I guess without even trying to provide evidence.
:beer:
thanks again