Is it worth going to a POPLA ?

peptic

Hi,

A work colleague received Parking control notice from UK Parking Control Office for the alleged contravention of “Dropping off / Picking up in a restricted area”

This happened in Newcastle airport.

The car is a company car, so the invoice came in the post to the registered office. This was immediately scanned and emailed to my colleague who is the main driver of the car.

She rang and emailed UK Parking Control Office, explaining the circumstances. She was dropping a customer off at the airport the barrier wasn’t working and pulled into an area in front of the hotel and was caught on CCTV. Her grounds of the appeal were that the customer had been stopping in the hotel but the barrier was broken.

Apologised for doing it and said it wouldn’t happen again

She rang the hotel after receiving the letter but, the hotel said it was nothing to do with them and couldn’t help.

She received the following from UK PCO, along with a POPLA Code

Parking Charge Number: XXXXX

Vehicle Registration Number: XXXXXXX

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by us on 25.04.2014
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage loading/unloading in a restricted area. The vehicle was stationary and therefore parked. There are signs around the entire airport complex including at the entrance that clearly state the restrictions in place. Security at the airport is paramount and any vehicle parked in a restricted zone is immediately issued a notice by the CCTV operator.

Please see the attached copy of the signage preceding the entrance to the Doubletree Hilton where the vehicle was parked that clearly states that the area is a no stopping/loading/unloading zone. By loading/unloading in this area the driver was in direct contravention to the parking restrictions and subsequently entered into a contract with the landowner to pay a charge. We appreciate that you were dropping off/collecting a paying customer of the Doubletree Hilton but to avoid being in contravention to the parking restrictions you must proceed through the barrier and enter the hotels official car park. The tariff board clearly states that no fee is payable for drivers dropping off/collecting guests.

We have liaised with the hotel regarding your appeal. They have stated that no faults with the barrier were logged on the date of the contravention and that if the barrier was not functioning correctly it would have been left in an upright position. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please submit it and your appeal will then be reassessed.

Attached on the email were photos showing the signage in the hotel.

I wave read the sticky and FAQ’s for newbie’s but as she has admitted doing it is worth going to POPLA, will they not just present the email she sent admitting doing it.

Thanks

Redx

clearly you did not read the sticky thread well enough

just because she did something does not mean they have the authority to issue a ticket (no contract - no legal standing) , also the signage could be poor , never mind the fact that the punishment does not fit the crime (not a gpeol)

so according you your logic (being blunt here , warning)

lets assume she stole a mars bar from tesco , maybe the "fine" should be £5 which includes the cost of the mars bar and costs , the fact they want to flog her with 100 lashes , take away her house and make her sweep the streets for a year is justified ?

this is why you appeal to popla , on the legal points , not what happened , nor if anyone admitted anything to anybody

peptic

Ok I thought that was going to be the answer,

So my POPLA is as follows,

Any comments, amendments or additions appreciated.

To clarify, car is company car, NTK sent to company. The company has not replied to the PCN naming the driver. So I therefore removed references like "as the keeper of the vehicle"

Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code: XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration: XXXXXX
PCN ref: XXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XXXXXX

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
3. Unclear, Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage
4. Contract With The Landowner - Not Compliant With The BPA Code Of Practice
5, Summary


1. CHARGE NOT A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The driver declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: 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. I require UK Parking Patrol Office. to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. THE AMOUNT OF THE CHARGE IS DISPROPORTIONATE

The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by UK Parking Patrol Office, and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. There can have been no loss arising from this contravention. Neither can UK Parking Patrol Office lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3. UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

Due to their overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs on entering this land are very hard to read, understand and unclear as to the area they refer to.

The position of the signs are difficult to see when entering the alleged controlled area, with no further signage in the alleged controlled area.

I contend that the signs and any core terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand.

I require that the Operator's provides documentary evidence and signage map/photos on this point, lighting at night, colours used in cases of driver colour blindness and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])

4. CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND/OR NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

UK Parking Patrol Office does not appear to own this land and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, UK Parking Patrol Office has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I require UK Parking Patrol Office to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner.

Contracts are complicated things, so a witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original showing the points above is the only acceptable items as evidence that a contract exists and authorises The Operator the right, under contract to write numerous letters to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants and to pursue them through to Court.

I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. SUMMARY

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 basic contract law

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

That's pretty good so far. I would look at other Airport POPLA appeal examples to find the 'no stopping zone' wording we normally suggest which quotes the POPLA Annual Report. It will make the 'dodgy signs' paragraph stronger.

Also add into the signage paragraph a bit more, asking, where does any of the signage tell a driver this, how would one know where this boundary was:

We appreciate that you were dropping off/collecting a paying customer of the Doubletree Hilton but to avoid being in contravention to the parking restrictions you must proceed through the barrier and enter the hotels official car park. The tariff board clearly states that no fee is payable for drivers dropping off/collecting guests.

And add a paragraph to put them to strict proof of this 'liaising' with the Hotel:

We have liaised with the hotel regarding your appeal. They have stated that no faults with the barrier were logged on the date of the contravention and that if the barrier was not functioning correctly it would have been left in an upright position. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please submit it and your appeal will then be reassessed.

bod1467

Interesting that UKPCO instantly (and correctly) diverted attention to the driver after the appeal, rather than continuing to pursue the keeper (company) ... as far as I can see the company didn't write to UKPCO to name the driver, so they haven't formally discharged keeper liability.

peptic

No the company not formally identified the driver with UKPO.

Does this need to happen prior to going to POPLA. ?

Is POFA 2012 still applicable even though is was in an Airport.

I was reading on another thread that POFA 2012 may not be relevant as the land is covered by the airport bylaws.

bod1467

As the PPC have engaged with the driver, and the driver has initiated an appeal, then they should have no lawful reason to pursue again the keeper.

In respect of POFA2012 ... the keeper could have ignored the PCN as airport land is usually covered by byelaws and thus not "relevant land", thus no keeper liability. Since the keeper did identify the driver then the POFA2012 argument becomes null and void.

peptic

Many thanks,

The driver has only been communicating by email, so the only info that UKPO have for the driver is an email address. No full name or address.

As it will now goto POPLA i guess it's not relevant.

peptic

Anyone know the current time it takes from submitting a POPLA to getting a decision (accepted hopefully)

ColliesCarer

Once submitted you will get an acknowledgement with a date around which time the appeal will be assessed. Usually about 5-8weeks from submission

peptic

Won the appeal :j

Thanks to everyone won the appeal on:

The Operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue parking charge notices at this site.

Full text on POPLA decisions thread, post #1216