Corporate Services Hereford

Redx

the popla process is not binding on the motorist so you can choose to ignore the decision if you lose

this may then involve debt collection agencies and at worst somebody using an MCOL or small claims court papers upon you which you can then defend further

a win at popla means its dead in the water , so why be defeatist and think you are going to lose ? very few people lose and most losers either put up a bad defence or use mitigation or both, which you wont be doing

bod1467

ColliesCarer wrote: »

so just leave off the http:// part and you will be able to post it as a broken link.

OP already had.

http://www.herefordvoice.co.uk/uploads/monthly_06_2014/post-109-0-69742100-1402668332_thumb.jpg
http://www.herefordvoice.co.uk/uploads/monthly_06_2014/post-109-0-87444000-1402668322_thumb.jpg

ColliesCarer

here are your links - apols I didn't notice earlier that you had already edited your post

http://herefordvoice.co.uk/uploads/monthly_06_2014/post-109-0-69742100-1402668332_thumb.jpg

http://herefordvoice.co.uk/uploads/monthly_06_2014/post-109-0-87444000-1402668322_thumb.jpg

EDIT - thanks bod - seems I must have my afternoon nap head on

JamersPad

Redx wrote: »

the popla process is not binding on the motorist so you can choose to ignore the decision if you lose

this may then involve debt collection agencies and at worst somebody using an MCOL or small claims court papers upon you which you can then defend further

a win at popla means its dead in the water , so why be defeatist and think you are going to lose ? very few people lose and most losers either put up a bad defence or use mitigation or both, which you wont be doing

Thank you. I have every faith that I will win! he says...

Okay, I have added the photographs I took of the notice on the wall of this car park, it is for permit holders (offices) hence why the car park was totally empty on a Sunday evening, other than me and 1 other vehicle.

nigelbb

Another hilarious sign attempting to disguise their £100 penalty as a contractual charge for breaching the T&Cs when you cannot contract to do something that is forbidden.

If they really wanted to make this contractual charge for parking stick the sign needs to be something like:-

Permit holders Free when permit is displayed
Parking without displaying permit £100 for up to 24 hours - please purchase ticket by calling 0XXX - XXXXXX - VAT receipt available on request

That wasn't so difficult was it? Why don't they have signs like this? It's because the £100 is a penalty for not displaying a permit & they are not genuinely offering the facility of parking without a permit for £100.

JamersPad

Okay here goes, how would this for a reply be to POPLA:


Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
9. Business rates

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £60 demanded by Corporate Services (Parking Management) is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs, which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. In its reply to my initial letter requesting a breakdown of how supposed damages of £XX have arisen, Corporate Services (Parking Management) has claimed the following as proof of its alleged ‘losses’ on which the charge is based:

- Wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions
- IT systems, software, licenses and peripherals
- DVLA fees and processing costs
- Costs in preparing and sending PCNs – stationery, postage and printing
- Legal, Accounting and other Professional costs
- Human Resources
- Premises Costs
- Vehicle and Telephone costs
- Loss of Pay and Display Ticket revenue generating from paying customers (where applicable)
- Loss of purchase revenue to Retail Outlets within the car park

Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £60 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite my requesting them to do so. As Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.

Given that Corporate Services (Parking Management) charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no


2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage

As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Corporate Services (Parking Management) must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

Corporate Services (Parking Management) does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Corporate Services (Parking Management) produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Corporate Services (Parking Management).


4. Unlawful penalty charge
Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Corporate Services (Parking Management) could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.

actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
Some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions and consent from the local authorities for their current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of ANPR systems. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to provide evidence that it has the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on the site in question.

8. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper sent by Corporate Services (Parking Management) to myself is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The Operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor, which requires words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... ". The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. Corporate Services (Parking Management) has failed to do this and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

hoohoo

As the registered keeper of vehicle

You are not the registered keeper, you are the keeper. There is a difference.

8. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper

You never had a notice to keeper (unless you did not tell us). You had a windscreen notice, or notice to driver.

Your point 8 should therefore be.

8. No Notice to Keeper
As the keeper of the vehicle I have not been served with a Notice to Keeper in the timescales required (or in fact, at all). Keeper liability therefore does not apply, and the keeper cannot be held liable. I have not identified the driver in any correspondence, and will continue to do so, as is my right.

Note that they might now retrospectively serve you with a notice to keeper, and that might therefore go to the registered keeper.

Up to you whether you keep that appeal point in.

JamersPad

hoohoo wrote: »

As the registered keeper of vehicle

You are not the registered keeper, you are the keeper. There is a difference.

8. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper

You never had a notice to keeper (unless you did not tell us). You had a windscreen notice, or notice to driver.

Your point 8 should therefore be.

8. No Notice to Keeper
As the keeper of the vehicle I have not been served with a Notice to Keeper in the timescales required (or in fact, at all). Keeper liability therefore does not apply, and the keeper cannot be held liable. I have not identified the driver in any correspondence, and will continue to do so, as is my right.

Note that they might now retrospectively serve you with a notice to keeper, and that might therefore go to the registered keeper.

Up to you whether you keep that appeal point in.

So I should maybe just remove point 8 then?

JamersPad

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points be taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
4. Unlawful penalty charge
5. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
7. Business rates

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £100 demanded by Corporate Services (Parking Management)reduced to £60 if paid within 4 days is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs, which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. In its reply to my initial letter requesting a breakdown of how supposed damages of £XX have arisen, Corporate Services (Parking Management) has claimed the following as proof of its alleged ‘losses’ on which the charge is based:

- Wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions
- IT systems, software, licenses and peripherals
- DVLA fees and processing costs
- Costs in preparing and sending PCNs – stationery, postage and printing
- Legal, Accounting and other Professional costs
- Human Resources
- Premises Costs
- Vehicle and Telephone costs
- Loss of Pay and Display Ticket revenue generating from paying customers (where applicable)
- Loss of purchase revenue to Retail Outlets within the car park

Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite my requesting them to do so. As Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.

Given that Corporate Services (Parking Management) charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage

As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Corporate Services (Parking Management) must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.

3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

Corporate Services (Parking Management) does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Corporate Services (Parking Management) produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Corporate Services (Parking Management).

4. Unlawful penalty charge
Corporate Services (Parking Management) cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Corporate Services (Parking Management) could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.

actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
Some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions and consent from the local authorities for their current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of ANPR systems. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) to strict proof to provide evidence that it has the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on the site in question.

da_rule

The numbering appears to be off. The numbers in the text don't seem to match the numbers in the summary at the top.