HELP...have I been an honest fool DRAFT POPLA just added for checking :)

Annie1960

Don't worry about any of that.

Your grounds for appeal: there are 4 boxes. Tick all of them except the one about vehicle being stolen (assuming your vehicle was not stolen, of course)

Don't even bother thinking about the website link or relating your efforts to pay. In the real world this may seem meaningful and relevant, but in the twisted world of private parking companies this is irrelevant. Just stick to the main arguments from the templates in the sticky thread.

DRAFT YOUR APPEAL AND POST IT ON HERE FOR COMMENTS BEFORE YOU SEND IT. POPLA IS YOUR ONE CHANCE FOR A FAIRLY PAINLESS WAY TO MAKE THIS INVOICE GO AWAY SO DON'T WASTE IT BY TRYING TO BE LOGICAL.

You can make your appeal online by attaching a Word document. If you try and type in the box instead the number of words you can use is limited, so don't bother with that.

I suggest:

Draft your appeal and post it on this thread for comments.

Appeal online - using attachment.
You will get a reference number. Write this number on a printed version of your appeal, put in envelope with stamp, go to Post Office and get free proof of posting. This way they cannot claim they did not get your appeal.

They are running a couple of weeks behind at the moment, so the date they give you for deciding your appeal is likely to be optimistic.

andrewf_2

So I'm drafting my letter now however concerned I'm a little short of options. As the numpty who thought sensible communication would work initially, I have already inadvertently mentioned I saw the sign for the car park so cant include lack of of poor signage. Also I cannot recall the sign details and the car park is too far away for me to drive to visit it, so I cannot express details in regards to its content!!

Rather seems like I can only say I received a parking notice for stay at x on x and claiming on grounds of GPEOL?

.....PS Posted this before refreshing and seeing Annie1960's reply.

.....PPS Thanks for that reply - I actually deleted the post you were replying to as I realised it was irrelevant haha and so not helpful ...

Umkomaas

andrewf wrote: »

So I'm drafting my letter now however concerned I'm a little short of options. As the numpty who thought sensible communication would work initially, I have already inadvertently mentioned I saw the sign for the car park so cant include lack of or poor signage. Also I cannot recall the sign details and the car park is too far away for me to drive to visit it, so I cannot express details in regards to its content!!

You don't need to. You put the PPC to strict proof that they fully comply with BPA CoP in terms of signage (many don't!). You don't do their job for them at appeal.

But signage is just one potent appeal point; the 'killer' is no GPEOL (correctly constructed as an appeal point in our submission).

Umkomaas

Rather seems like I can only say I received a parking notice for stay at x on x and claiming on grounds of GPEOL?

No! GPEOL is an obvious opening point only. But -

Do you know if their signs comply?
Do you know if they have authority from the landowner to issue proceedings in their own name?
Do you know if they have proprietary interest in the land you parked on?
Do you believe they have formed a contract with you on the back of some poxy sign?

andrewf_2

Umkomaas wrote: »

No! GPEOL is an obvious opening point only. But -

Do you know if their signs comply? NOPE - been trying to find examples as I am to far from the site to check.
Do you know if they have authority from the landowner to issue proceedings in their own name? NOPE - but was going to raise this as a point as I understand this reverts back to them to provide evidence of such
Do you know if they have proprietary interest in the land you parked on? NOPE - and haven't come across this one...
Do you believe they have formed a contract with you on the back of some poxy sign?- isn't this dependant on the content of the sign and what I may or may not have breached contract wise?

Cheers andy

ColliesCarer

Hi Andy,

The point is they have to provide evidence for every challenge.
They have to prove their case. The more challenges, the more onerous the task is for them in responding and the more chance they will decide not to bother, not provide sufficient evidence to refute all of your challenges or make mistakes.

andrewf_2

The registered keepers draft letter ....really glad I've had to use 1/2 of my day off to sort this !!

Certainly happy with points 1 and 2. 3 seems OK ad 4 added for extra checks.

Does it still need 5? Both in terms of the camera point and whether the point about the timeline is valid?

There is no pic and the car park is too far to go back to. It is recalled that the time to pay online was 24 hours but the appeal rejection and a prior correspondence stated it should be done 'on the day'. As it cannot be evidenced by photo and replies on memory is it best removed?

Thanks

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: CP Plus Limted
PCN Ref:
Date of PCN:

I as the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxxxxxxx received a charge notice from CP PLus Limited requiring payment of a charge of £70 (discounted to £35 if paid within 14 days) for parking at the x car park. The issue date on the notice is x/14 and as the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

The charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
No contractually authority to levy charges
The amount of the charge is disproportionate and therefore a penalty
No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
The signage in use

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but rather a penalty

The £70 demand asked for far exceeds an appropriate amount for the period stated on the notice and the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. CP Plus Limited have not at any point addressed or identified why they feel a £70 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and an unreasonable penalty and therefore does not align with the BPA code of practice.

For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs that were identified (to add up to the £70) as having been suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement, erection of signage, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc) 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.

2. No contractual authority to levy charges

A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. CP Plus Limited must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles CP PLus Limited to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor and therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Highview Parking Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that CP Plus Limited can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

The registered keeper does not believe that CP PLus Limited has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give them any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, CP PLus Limited's 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.

3. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by CP Plus Limited and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £35 by early payment then it is unreasonable to begin with.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Highview Parking Ltd. Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Highview Parking Ltd. Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.

5. The registered keeper believes that the Signage does not comply with BPA requlations such as those regarding the data policy regarding ANPR technology used in this car park. The registered keeper also believes that the discrepancy between the information displayed, specifically in regards to how long the period allowed to make payment online is, with that being expressed in writing by CP Plus Limited in the appeal rejection letter has lead to both confusion and uncertainty on the actual time limit allowed for any such payments.

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this charge fails to meet the required standards to be compliant with the BPA Code of Practice 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

Yes leave in point 5 but you'll need to explain to POPLA what happened in this case (unusually for one of our POPLA appeals!) in your case it's relevant as the driver DID pay by phone in the end. If the signs don't give a time limit on when to 'pay by phone' then say so clearly, and state therefore that the driver did comply (paid by phone) and the driver did have a verbal agreement (contract) with this PPC that they had made the payment, so should merely await the letter to the keeper then it would be sorted out and cancelled seeing as there was no loss caused.

Umkomaas

You need to ensure your bullet point headers at the opening of your appeal are the same as the headers to each appeal paragraph and are also numbered the same. For example your 2nd bullet says:

No contractually authority to levy charges

Your paragraph header says:

2. No contractual authority to levy charges

I would, for presentational purposes, embolden your para headers.

Also in appeal paragraph 2 you have mentioned Highview - presumably lifted via a copy and paste - so you need to get rid of that reference, then tidy up the paragraph so that it then reads cogently. Even removing Highview, the para doesn't read that well to me.

Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Highview Parking Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that CP Plus Limited can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

Getting these bits and pieces right will make it look much less of a template written by internet guru's (apostrophe 's' deliberate - in-joke!!).

Otherwise, subject to additions suggested by Coupon, looks good to go.

andrewf_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes leave in point 5 but you'll need to explain to POPLA what happened in this case (unusually for one of our POPLA appeals!) in your case it's relevant as the driver DID pay by phone in the end. If the signs don't give a time limit on when to 'pay by phone' then say so clearly, and state therefore that the driver did comply (paid by phone) and the driver did have a verbal agreement (contract) with this PPC that they had made the payment, so should merely await the letter to the keeper then it would be sorted out and cancelled seeing as there was no loss caused.

Thanks.

This may change the view point on keeping in or not but the driver never actually got to pay......

With no cash to hand, the pay online option was noted to pay later. The original weblink details were lost and by the time they were gained again the window to pay had passed. Contact was made to both the pay company and CP Plus however 1/ this was delayed due to the bank holiday (both unavailable until the next working day) and 2/ both parties would not accept payment - the pay collector as after the time limit and CP Plus refused saying the driver would have to await the penalty notice (!!) as they couldn't take it until it (the notice) arrived and then they would be able to simply sort things out and driver could make payment........Unfortunately this statement was made to me by them over the phone so no written evidence.....

I didn't include any of this in the draft in case it was viewed by POPLA as mitigating circumstances and so not of relevance, despite it showing both the effort to pay and CP Plus' assurance that all would be sorted.....

So does this change the approach?

FYI - I only added point 5 as we are certain that the time limt said 24 hours BUT we have since seen written replies quoting it as 'pay on the day'...

Re the other suggestions, I will put them in to place and do a clean up.