Highview

Dee140157

Why? The new "version" has nothing to do with the reason you are appealing. Just go with the standard appeal Redx has already pointed you towards.

Stormy38

thank you, my last question before starting to draft my appeal, as this was a lease car ant they approached my company as the keeper I did tell them I was the driver do I need to approach my appeal any differently to that of the registered keeper please?

Redx

change the wording to driver from registered keeper

Stormy38

Please could someone give this the once over before I submit to POPLA. I've copied from numerous posts and advised threads. TIA.


[FONT="&amp]POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Highview Parking Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

I as the driver received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £70 (discounted to £42 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of exceeding the duration of maximum stay permitted at Riverside Retail Park B. The issue date on the invoice is XXXXXXX.

As the driver, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]4. Signage
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy
7. Business Rates[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]8. Summary[/FONT][FONT="&amp]

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]The demand for a payment of £70 (discounted to £42 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 keeper 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 Highview Parking Ltd. 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.

[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (of which there is none as this is a free car park) by Highview Parking Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Highview Parking Ltd. 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. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking rate in the corresponding area is £2.00 per hour with a daily rate of £20.00 per 24 hour period. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]3. No authority to levy charges[/FONT][FONT="&amp]
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Highview Parking Ltd. 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.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Highview Parking Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I request Highview Parking Ltd. To provide strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Highview Parking Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Highview Parking Ltd.[/FONT] [FONT="&amp]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 Highview Parking Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Signage[/FONT][FONT="&amp]
The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle and on a sharp right hand bend. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car. It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

7. ANPR Accuracy
Highview Parking Ltd. are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it’s vital that Highview Parking Ltd. produce evidence in response to these points.

8. Business Rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., I do not believe that HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD. has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.
I put Highview Parking Ltd. to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at Riverside Retail Park B car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]9. Summary[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]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.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]Yours faithfully[/FONT]

Redx

copy and paste your original draft into notepad and save it

then copy and paste onto here, to avoid all those dozens of formatting errors

Stormy38

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Highview Parking Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN:

I as the driver received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £70 (discounted to £42 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of exceeding the duration of maximum stay permitted at Riverside Retail Park B. The issue date on the invoice is XXXXXXX.

As the driver, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
4. Signage
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy
7. Business Rates
8. Summary

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £70 (discounted to £42 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 keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
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 Highview Parking Ltd. 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 (of which there is none as this is a free car park) by Highview Parking Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Highview Parking Ltd. 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. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking rate in the corresponding area is £2.00 per hour with a daily rate of £20.00 per 24 hour period. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Highview Parking Ltd. 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.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Highview Parking Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I request Highview Parking Ltd. To provide strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Highview Parking Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Highview Parking Ltd. 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 Highview Parking Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

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

5. Signage
The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle and on a sharp right hand bend. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car. It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

7. ANPR Accuracy
Highview Parking Ltd. are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it’s vital that Highview Parking Ltd. produce evidence in response to these points.

8. 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.

Umkomaas

Your summary bullet points don't align with the headers for your appeal points, in fact they're all over the place - you need to get the basics right.

Also drop the 'Business Rates' appeal point, it's run its course and is no longer deemed to be relevant, so don't waste time putting that in.

Stormy38

thank you, too many copy and paste sections entered! Hopefully this is better and have dropped the business rates section as advised.


POPLA Reference Number:


Vehicle Reg:


PPC: Highview Parking Ltd.


PCN Ref:


Alleged Contravention Date & Time:


Date of PCN:





I as the driver received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £70 (discounted to £42 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of exceeding the duration of maximum stay permitted at Riverside Retail Park B. The issue date on the invoice is XXXXXXX.





As the driver, 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.No authority to levy charges


4.No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant


5. Signage


6. Unlawful Penalty Charge


7. ANPR Accuracy


8. Summary





1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss


The demand for a payment of £70 (discounted to £42 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 keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.


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 Highview Parking Ltd. 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 (of which there is none as this is a free car park) by Highview Parking Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Highview Parking Ltd. 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. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking rate in the corresponding area is £2.00 per hour with a daily rate of £20.00 per 24 hour period. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.


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








3. No authority to levy charges


A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Highview Parking Ltd. 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.


I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Highview Parking Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.


I request Highview Parking Ltd. To provide strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Highview Parking Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Highview Parking Ltd. 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 Highview Parking Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


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





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.


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





5. Signage


The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle and on a sharp right hand bend. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car. It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.


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





6. Unlawful Penalty Charge


Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.


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





7. ANPR Accuracy


Highview Parking Ltd. are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it’s vital that Highview Parking Ltd. produce evidence in response to these points.





8. 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.

Coupon-mad

It is getting there. I don't think the 'disproportionate' paragraph adds anything that isn't already there in the no GPEOL paragraph (obviously keep the latter). And as you've admitted you were driving, the 'no creditor' paragraph is pointless as that only applies under POFA2012 re 'keeper liability'.

See this one where the argument about no GPEOL is a bit stronger and it uses wording from actual POPLA decisions about where there is no unpaid tariff and no obvious initial loss:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65519703#Comment_65519703


HTH

Stormy38

A bit more cutting and pasting, hopefully in the right places. Thanks everyone for all your help, it really is appreciated. I hope I've taken your advice and changed this correctly.


I as the driver received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £70 (discounted to £42 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of exceeding the duration of maximum stay permitted at Riverside Retail Park B. The issue date on the invoice is XXXXXXX.





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


1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss


2.No authority to levy charges


3. Signage


4. Unlawful Penalty Charge


5. ANPR Accuracy


6. Summary





1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss


The demand for a payment of £70 (discounted to £42 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 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 Highview Parking Ltd. to prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There was no parking charge levied in the above car park as the car park is 'free', there is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was not full, there is 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.


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. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking rate in the corresponding area is £2.00 per hour with a daily rate of £20.00 per 24 hour period. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.


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. No authority to levy charges


A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Highview Parking Ltd. 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.


I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Highview Parking Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.


I request Highview Parking Ltd. To provide strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Highview Parking Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Highview Parking Ltd. 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 Highview Parking Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


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





3. Signage


The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle and on a sharp right hand bend. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car. It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.


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





4. Unlawful Penalty Charge


Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.


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





5. ANPR Accuracy


Highview Parking Ltd. are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it’s vital that Highview Parking Ltd. produce evidence in response to these points.





6. 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.