PCN appeal rejection

Dachs_2

Hi

I have an ongoing issue with a PCN I received in a railway car park stating that the car was parked outside of rail service times. The company is not the landowner.Although the car park has signs up stating that you can be fined initially £60 and then up to £100(the car park is free) there are clearly no timetables available at the car park itself as you have to walk a distance to get to the rail station. I have appealed in the fact that this is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and they also got my forename wrong on the formal demand but this has been rejected. I realise that they can only chase the driver. I used the template from here to make the appeal, so it was pretty in depth. I have now been advised to pay up or I can now appeal to POPLA.....any help please?


Thanks

Dachs

Annie1960

Was it in England/Wales?
Was it a private company (not the council) who issued the ticket?


If so, check out the POPLA appeal thread in the stickies (post #3) - here is the link.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Spend some time reading this, then use the templates to draft your own appeal.

It is very important that you post your draft on this thread to get feedback before you send it to POPLA. It's relatively easy to win at POPLA if you use the right arguments.

When you send your appeal, you can attach a Word document online at the POPLA site, but it is also recommended that you send a hard copy by Royal Mail, with (free) proof of posting at the Post Office in addition to any online copy.

ColliesCarer

Hi Dachs
No one here would advise you to pay up but there is lots of help and advice for submitting a POPLA appeal available.
Which PPC is it? APCOA by any chance?

A POPLA appeal will be very winnable here - as it's a railway car park it may be subject to byelaws which would mean there is no keeper liability as it would not be relevant land for POFA 2012 to apply.
Also there can be no contract with the driver on a free car park and the amount is not a genuine pre estimate of loss - that in itself is a major winning appeal point.

read the NEWBIES thread post #3 to find out How to Win at POPLA and see examples of wining appeals.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Photos of the signs would also be useful - so the forum members can check the wording and best advise how to word you POPLA appeal. As a NEWBIE you would need to post broken links to the photos by leaving off the http:// and leaving spaces.

You can also search the forum (on the right in the green band on the main forum page) using the parking company name and/or the location to find posts by others dealing with same company and location.

Select a POPLA appeal to base your own on - then post up your draft for help fine tuning

Dachs_2

Hi

Thank you for the direction. The PPC is Care Parking. I will view the various POPLA templates and repost.

Many thanks

Dachs

Dachs_2

Hi

The sign in the car park read as follows and did include a BPA logo

This car park is for the use of Metrolink passengers only

A parking charge will be issued when:

Parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid disabled badge.

Obstructive parking, including parking outside of a marked parking bay or any unauthorised use of a parking space.

Parking outside of tram service hours

If you park on this land contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge to the sum of £100.00(or reduced sum of £60 if the payment is made within 14 days).

If this parking charge remains unpaid vehicle keeper details may be requested from the dvla and you may incur additional costs as a result of action taken against you.

This parking charge will be issued in the form of a parking ticket .Enforcement may take place at any time. This land is private property.

A surcharge of £2.50 will be taken for all debit and credit card payments.

Care parking and their client accepts no responsibility for loss or damage to cars or the contents there of unless such loss or damage is caused by care parking. Care parking is solely responsible for providing space maximisation and is not responsible in any way for the car parks service.

The BPA logo was on there



Thanks
Dachs


Thanks

bod1467

You can't agree to a contract to breach (contravene) a term of parking ... so GPEOL still needs to be in your POPLA appeal.

Dachs_2

Hi Bod

Thanks for your reply. Please advise on usage of GPEOL in POPLA?

Thanks

Dachs

4consumerrights

looks like they are attempting the contractual route - but failing for the reasons bod states above - relying on breaching a term to enter - cannot be an offer. also i.e. no vat invoice and not a genuine contractual offer - intending to penalise .

so needs a little extra paragraph wording along the above lines in addition to GPEOL.

please post up the full POPLA appeal before submitting

It is the Anchor group securities t/a care parking

and their website has this wonderful statement:

"OUR PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED CAR PARKS CAN ADD 10% TO ASSET VALUE"

http://www.careparking.co.uk/services.php


REALLY?

Umkomaas

Dachs wrote: »

Hi Bod

Thanks for your reply. Please advise on usage of GPEOL in POPLA?

Thanks

Dachs

Check any of the POPLA appeals in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky and most GPEOL paragraphs will be very much the same - just copy and paste one into your own appeal, but make sure there are no obvious contextual contradictions in it.

Also read some of the latest POPLA decisions in the eponymous thread, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Dachs_2

Hi
OK so far I have got this appeal letter together please could you kindly advise if ok?
POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Car Parking Partnership.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:
Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:
I received an invoice from Care Parking requiring payment of a charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days for the alleged breach of “Abused Patron Parking”. The issue date on the invoice is 2014.
As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Lack of signage- no contract with the driver
3. Lack of standing/authority from the landowner
4. Summary
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'contravening parking restrictions” so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park had barely any vehicles present at 5:30am on the date of the alleged breach. The car park is free to Metrolink users, so there was no loss of potential income in a free car park.
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. Therefore, the sum they are seeking is not representative of the loss incurred by either the landowner, nor Care Parking (division of Anchor Security Services) flowing from any breach of the terms and conditions. The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." The charge is Punitive, unfair and unreasonable.
2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
I note that the signs are extremely small for a large car park. I put Care Parking to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash. There is no entrance sign, no lighting on site and the sign is not prominent, not reflective & placed too high to be lit by headlights. The wording regarding tram service times is insufficiently worded to notify the driver of the criteria for a breach. There are no tram service timetables on site or visible at the car park. The pictures of the vehicle provided by Care Parking were taken in darkness via a flash camera and also appear to have been aided by the Operators headlights!
2)A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit...should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads''.
3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
I do not believe that Care Parking(division of Anchor Security services) have any title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Care Parking (division of Anchor Security Services) to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Care Parking (division of Anchor Security Services) 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. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Care Parking (division of Anchor Security Services) are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
I require Care Parking (division of Anchor Security Services) to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. 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.
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. This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

Many thanks
Dachs

Coupon-mad

That looks fine but you appear to have 2 x point 2!