We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Popla appeal - Proof read please.
Darcie1229
Posts: 7 Forumite
This is my popla appeal for a PCN in Asda. I find all this popla/car parking stuff mind boggling so if someone could please help me win my appeal it is much appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge as issued on 01/03/14 by Smart Parking. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.
1. Lack of informative signage
There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and Smart Parking. Signs were observed, however they do not demonstrate a PCN will be issued. It demonstrates a PCN ‘may’ be issued within certain circumstances. This doesn’t clearly demonstrate the guidelines of when a PCN will be issued.
I require Smart Parking to provide POPLA with evidence that its signage is compliant with BPA rules regarding informative signage.
2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.
The £70 charge asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked because car parking charge of £1.00 is refunded in-store. In the PCN Smart Parking Ltd did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £70 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
The demand for a payment of £70 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.
19.6 If you’re parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.
I require Smart Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Smart Parking has suffered as a result of the car being without a valid ticket should add up to £70 (Discounted to £40 if paid within 14 days).
Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.
3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
Smart Parking Ltd’s lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowners and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.
The registered keeper does not believe that Smart Parking Ltd has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Smart Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers.
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant.
In addition, Smart Parking Ltd lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Smart Parking. The driver expects Smart Parking to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.
4. No breach/trespass
If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the Smart Parking ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if Smart Parking does now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.
Thanks in advance.
Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge as issued on 01/03/14 by Smart Parking. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.
1. Lack of informative signage
There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and Smart Parking. Signs were observed, however they do not demonstrate a PCN will be issued. It demonstrates a PCN ‘may’ be issued within certain circumstances. This doesn’t clearly demonstrate the guidelines of when a PCN will be issued.
I require Smart Parking to provide POPLA with evidence that its signage is compliant with BPA rules regarding informative signage.
2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.
The £70 charge asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked because car parking charge of £1.00 is refunded in-store. In the PCN Smart Parking Ltd did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £70 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
The demand for a payment of £70 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.
19.6 If you’re parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.
I require Smart Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Smart Parking has suffered as a result of the car being without a valid ticket should add up to £70 (Discounted to £40 if paid within 14 days).
Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.
3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
Smart Parking Ltd’s lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowners and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.
The registered keeper does not believe that Smart Parking Ltd has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Smart Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers.
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant.
In addition, Smart Parking Ltd lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Smart Parking. The driver expects Smart Parking to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.
4. No breach/trespass
If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the Smart Parking ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if Smart Parking does now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.
0
Comments
-
If anyone could reply and advise me if this is a good appeal it will be much appreciated.
I also want to include a grace period point because my pcn was issued on the 11th minute of the ten minute grace period
0 -
Hi Darcie,
Looking fairly good,
I would suggest you start with your strongest point, which is point 2 and move your signage point to position 3.0 -
Ok thanks for replying.
I have moved the points around.
Do you think it would be a strong enough point to put in about the grace period? As my car was spotted without a ticket before the ten minute grace period, it was put on at the 11th minute. Very frustrating!
Thanks for your help!0 -
It's a bit late for me to reply but have been away to a certain place in Newquay; took a few nice holiday snaps of a certain beach car park too. Anyway, no, a grace period is not a winning point for POPLA in most cases so stick with the above; you will win.
If you have only replied when the NTO arrived, and only replied as the registered keeper, then you could have added the fact that, as keeper, you have no liability as they have not followed POFA 2012. Their NTO has no mention of POFA2012 I seem to recall - if so, then it isn't something that a keeper can ever be held liable for.
It's either 'comply with POFA' or 'no keeper liability' and Smart choose the latter.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I won this appeal, Smart Parking didn't bother sending any evidence to Popla, they just cancelled it. Yippee
:)
Thanks for your help ColliersCarer and Coupon-mad!0 -
well done
just goes to show that with a strong defence aided by the knowledgeable people in this forum (and others) they tend to back off either before popla or at popla0 -
Congratulations Darcie :T
Glad that was resolved so quickly for you 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards