Help with popla appeal. Please.

jeanie49

I originally got a PCN at Liverpool John Lennon airport, for stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. I sent an appeal letter which they have rejected.
I have a popla parking on private land appeal form, and need help filling it in please.
Which box do I tick- not improperly parked, or parking charge exceeded the appropriate amount?
Thanks in advance for any much needed help.

Redx

either do this online or on the paperwork , tick all except stolen

there are dozens of threads about JLA on here with suitable recent appeals, so just find one using the forum search tool and the keyword JLA and adapt it , then submit it

bod1467

#1 Read the NEWBIES thread for advice about POPLA appeals

#2 Post your draft appeal here for comment

#3 Tick ALL the boxes except Stolen

Edit - original thread. Please don't create new threads about the same event.

jeanie49

I found this on Herriot post. Is this the right thing to send?
To whom it may concern:
POPLA

Re verification code xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish to appeal against VCS and their alleged incident xxxxx, based upon consideration of the following:

1) Contravention of the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5).
2) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
3) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
4) VCS are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.
5) No contract with driver
6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' at this location which is not a car park
7) The alleged contravention did not take place
8) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012


1) Contravention of the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5).
The alleged incident took place on DATE 2013, as detailed in the CCTV photographs enclosed with the invoice (attached) The invoice is dated DATE 2014 and was served on DATE 2014. Under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Para 9 (5) notice must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged parking incident. 123 days had elapsed between the alleged incident and VCS serving the parking invoice, which renders this charge unenforceable.

2) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping.

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 your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum,that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable."

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. As VCS are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge excessive and unenforceable.

3) This was not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
The driver has not been identified, yet VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Liverpool Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws and so POFA 2012 does not apply. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
VCS are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives VCS the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.

5) No contract with driver.
If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions. A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as then by doing so they would block the junction. In any case, as VCS are only an agent working for the owner, mere signs do not help them to form a contract. VCS -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. In this instance, there was no contract formed whatsoever.

6) Non-compliant ANPR 'hidden camera van' system at this location which is not a car park
The BPA code of practice 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. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
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, the secret camera van does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner and I contend that VCS have failed to meet the requirements of all of the above points in the BPA Code of Practice. They will need to show evidence to the contrary on every point, and explain how this hidden camera van can be compliant when this is not a car park, it is a road, and there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic to be informed that this technology is in use and what VCS will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice as regards the use of a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a van fitted with a hidden camera, patrolling land which is not a 'car park' and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking'.


7) The alleged contravention did not take place
The notice issued states ‘You are notified under Paragraph 9 (2) (b) of Schedule 4 Of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this Parking Charge Notice in full.'

The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘Stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply.

The photographs on the parking charge notice clearly show the car stopped on a road and not in a car park. There was no parking contravention at all. VCS are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place.



8) The notice to keeper does not contain the required information as per POFA 2012
Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the POFA stipulate the mandatory set of information that must be included on the notice to keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

The Parking Charge Notice issued to me and attached to this appeal does not:

a. Stipulate the period the car was parked (start and end times)
b. Identify the “creditor” who is legally entitled to recover the parking charge.

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of POFA indicates that the ‘creditor must be identified’. To “identify” a “Creditor” VCS must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has been legally contracted.

jeanie49

IS this all I need to put on the appeal form?

Re verification code

As the driver I wish to appeal against VCS and their alleged incident , based upon consideration of the following:


Dear POPLA
Re verification code..

As the driver I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds.

1) Amount demanded is a penalty not a genuine pre estimate of loss
2) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability
3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
4) Misleading and unclear signage
5) No evidence that a contravention took place



1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping / parking in a restricted area. VCS are alleging a 'failure to comply' yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which renders this charge unenforceable.


2) Not Relevant Land as defined under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability.
VCS are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. The registered keeper is not liable for this charge as Liverpool Airport is designated as an airport by the Secretary of State and therefore roads within the airport are subject to airport bylaws and so POFA 2012 does not apply. I put the Operator to strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not already covered by byelaws. Further to this I have found a copy of the airport byelaws which can be viewed here:
According to the above byelaws covering Liverpool airport since 1962 the fine levied for the first breach or non -compliance with parking regulations is set at £5, therefore the charge of £100 is excessive and unenforceable.

3) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers
As VCS are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives VCS the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.


4) Misleading and unclear signage.
The signage on display at the airport is poorly illuminated in hours of darkness (it was dark when the alleged contravention was deemed to have occurred) and does not carry the appearance of official signage. It looks more like advertising signage. Further to this there are vast areas of the car park where signage is not in place. My vehicle was parked in just such an area. Furthermore the signs at this location are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly cannot be read without stopping as the text is too small, and therefore do not comply with the BPA code of practice. VCS are required to show evidence to the contrary. I would draw the assessor's attention to the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's First AnnualPOPLAReport2013: ''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it.''

1. The BPA AOS Code of Practice sets out in detail how the operator should lay out their signs. The appellant contends that the operator has failed in all respects to comply with the requirements of the Code.

2. The appellant contends that such signage as has been deployed by the operator in terms of the type face and size used, its location- particularly being fixed above head height on lamp standards at the roadside - render them unreadable.

3. Even if a driver was to look up, were he travelling at a speed of just 25mph (11metres/sec), he would be unable to read the sign before passing it. The Operator has therefore failed to comply with sections 28.2, 28.3 and 28.4 of Appendix A of the Code and so cannot consider the driver to have been properly informed and cannot therefore seek to rely upon those signs as the basis of any contract.

jeanie49

ALSO FORGOT TO SAY -ID RETURNED FIRST LETTER SAYING I WAS THE DRIVER -(MY SON OWNS THE CAR). Does this make much difference?

bod1467

If you're appealing as the driver then item 2 needs reworded. Not Relevant Land is still a valid appeal point, but needs to be tweaked as what you have at the moment is in relation to a registered keeper.