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!
F1rst Parking LLP - Hertfordshire University
MyStupidSon
Posts: 16 Forumite
We have a very stupid son who you would think being university educated and on target to attain a First Class Degree would have more sense!
He decided (on listening to advice from others) that it was OK to consistently ignore parking restrictions in place in the University car parks. As it was private property, he was told that they wouldn't be able to enforce any tickets or charges so he continued to collect parking tickets (we have no idea how many!).
He then started receiving letters from F1rst Parking which he had been told to ignore so shredded them. Then came some letters from Roxburghe (Debt Collection Company) which he was also ignoring until we became aware of what was happening.
Once we realised what he had done, we sent a copy of your template letter to F1rst Parking for each of the PCN numbers we were aware of and also another general letter relating to "PCN numbers - all relating to vehicle registration xxxx xxx" in the hope of establishing exactly how many PCNs we are dealing with.
As expected, we have started to receive rejections to our appeals (although so far, none of the ones that have been passed to Roxburghe).
We have now drafted our POPLA appeal letter to send for each PCN we get a POPLA code for but are a little concerned that we don't have enough grounds for appeal.
The rejection letter states that "the appeal has been rejected as a breach of the Terms and Conditions of parking occurred, you had parked without displaying a valid payment".
The notice to keeper does mention the Creditor's name as F1rst Parking LLP so we can't use that as grounds.
The ground of appeal that we are hoping will win the appeal is the contract with the landowner but we would be very grateful if someone could look over the following wording to see if what we have included is sufficient.
Also, are we right in thinking that if one of the appeals results in the charge being cancelled they should all be cancelled - or will they look at how many he has and make an example of him?
We should also point out that at least one of the car parks is no longer in existence so they would be unlikely to be able to prove that the signage is adequate (unless they have photos taken previously).
The content of the letter is as follows:
"POPLA CODE «POPLA_Code»
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxx at the time of the incident, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by F1rst Parking LLP.
My appeal is based on the following grounds.
1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. Contract with the landowner – no locus standi.
3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
To expand on these points:
1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
The parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
I require F1rst Parking LLP to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. F1rst Parking LLP cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner does not impose a parking fee for the area in question, there is no loss to F1rst Parking LLP nor the landowner. The Office of Fair Trading has stated 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.''
2. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
F1rst Parking LLP do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that F1rst Parking LLP has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow F1rst Parking LLP to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.
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 un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.
So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between F1rst Parking LLP and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): (link)
In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'
I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. F1rst Parking LLP cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.
3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
Due to their position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that F1rst Parking LLP are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.
Based on the above arguments, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed."
Thanks in advance for any help!
He decided (on listening to advice from others) that it was OK to consistently ignore parking restrictions in place in the University car parks. As it was private property, he was told that they wouldn't be able to enforce any tickets or charges so he continued to collect parking tickets (we have no idea how many!).
He then started receiving letters from F1rst Parking which he had been told to ignore so shredded them. Then came some letters from Roxburghe (Debt Collection Company) which he was also ignoring until we became aware of what was happening.
Once we realised what he had done, we sent a copy of your template letter to F1rst Parking for each of the PCN numbers we were aware of and also another general letter relating to "PCN numbers - all relating to vehicle registration xxxx xxx" in the hope of establishing exactly how many PCNs we are dealing with.
As expected, we have started to receive rejections to our appeals (although so far, none of the ones that have been passed to Roxburghe).
We have now drafted our POPLA appeal letter to send for each PCN we get a POPLA code for but are a little concerned that we don't have enough grounds for appeal.
The rejection letter states that "the appeal has been rejected as a breach of the Terms and Conditions of parking occurred, you had parked without displaying a valid payment".
The notice to keeper does mention the Creditor's name as F1rst Parking LLP so we can't use that as grounds.
The ground of appeal that we are hoping will win the appeal is the contract with the landowner but we would be very grateful if someone could look over the following wording to see if what we have included is sufficient.
Also, are we right in thinking that if one of the appeals results in the charge being cancelled they should all be cancelled - or will they look at how many he has and make an example of him?
We should also point out that at least one of the car parks is no longer in existence so they would be unlikely to be able to prove that the signage is adequate (unless they have photos taken previously).
The content of the letter is as follows:
"POPLA CODE «POPLA_Code»
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxx at the time of the incident, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by F1rst Parking LLP.
My appeal is based on the following grounds.
1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. Contract with the landowner – no locus standi.
3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
To expand on these points:
1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
The parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.
I require F1rst Parking LLP to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. F1rst Parking LLP cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner does not impose a parking fee for the area in question, there is no loss to F1rst Parking LLP nor the landowner. The Office of Fair Trading has stated 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.''
2. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
F1rst Parking LLP do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that F1rst Parking LLP has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow F1rst Parking LLP to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.
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 un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.
So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between F1rst Parking LLP and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): (link)
In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'
I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. F1rst Parking LLP cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.
3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
Due to their position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that F1rst Parking LLP are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.
Based on the above arguments, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed."
Thanks in advance for any help!
0
Comments
-
We need to know exactly what is written on the signs. The fact that in rejecting your appeals they state that there was a "breach of the Terms and Conditions of parking" should mean that an appeal will be won on the usual straightforward "not a genuine pre-estimate of loss" grounds but it would be nice to quote what it says on the signs so that they cannot wriggle out of it.0
-
They are not going to give a popla code as it's with roxburghe IMOWhen posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
Have you got any POPLA codes yet or are you just hoping for some? You have the right idea re POPLA appeal wording but, as nigelbb stated, we'd ideally need to see a picture of their signs, to be sure whether they are alleging a convoluted 'contractual fee' or whether the fake PCNs are for 'breach/contravening terms'. The latter being easy to win at POPLA, or even in court if ever they try a small claim (no biggie, you'd be surprised, doesn't affect credit rating, very defendable and very rare anyway).The rejection letter states that "the appeal has been rejected as a breach of the Terms and Conditions of parking occurred, you had parked without displaying a valid payment".
Also if you don't get POPLA codes it's not the end of the world and you'd just be in 'ignore mode' like we all did for years and years, and the sky didn't fall in! I have my own collection of debt collector letters from 6 years ago right here, because before POPLA existed, everyone did just ignore this drivel. Debt collector letters are nothing - did you Google Roxburghe and realise they are teetering on the edge of extinction as they have been told they are losing their CCA licence (currently under appeal but teetering)! They are mere shysters, pen-pushers - did you know a debt collector CANNOT litigate over these?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=24362
If F1rst Parking or their solicitor move on to sending a pre-court letter (NOT the fake ones from Roxburghe!) then it would need a response but you can safely ignore debt collector letters if several of the PCNs never get a POPLA code.
HTH - don't pay these.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 -
Thank you all for your replies. What a wonderful site!
We have asked our son to take some pictures of the signage so will reply when we have them.
We have POPLA codes for some but not for any of the ones we've had Roxburghe letters for yet. We have sent letters to F1rst Parking for all including those so will appeal if we do get the codes but will just ignore them for now if we don't.0 -
So how many tickets have popla codes, and how many are with roxburghe ?When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
So far we have 8 POPLA codes and 4 more are with Roxburghe. There is also 1 which we have appealed to F1rst Parking for but have had no response yet. There may be others we don't know about yet!0
-
So appeal to popla on each of them individually. Is there any way you can get pictures of the signs at this site?When posting a parking issue on MSE do not reveal any information that may enable PPCs to identify you. They DO monitor the forum.
We don't need the following to help you.
Name, Address, PCN Number, Exact Date Of Incident, Date On Invoice, Reg Number, Vehicle Picture, The Time You Entered & Left Car Park, Or The Amount of Time You Overstayed.
:beer: Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Member :beer:0 -
My son is going to take some photos of the signs at 2 of the car parks, the third car park no longer exists.0
-
Check the expiry dates of all 8 POPLA codes quickly, using the link in port #3 of the NEWBIES thread.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 -
All the POPLA codes arrived on Friday and have 28 days from 23rd April, we had checked them.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