Corporate Services Hereford

bod1467

I get the impression you're throwing lots of stuff into your appeal (copy/paste from other appeals) but not actually reading and understanding it (in the context of YOUR situation). That should be the first thing you do now.

Guys_Dad

You were told that you are not the registered keeper but your appeal still starts with that.

The mitigation point "the car park was empty...." will work when "I know I was doing 90 mph but the motorway was clear and it was 2.00 a.m........." gets you off a speeding fine.

JamersPad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep in the signage paragraph. You should be adding there, that the car park was 'shrouded in darkness' or 'pitch black' and/or 'not well lit' (you choose the words) and the signage was not capable of being read as it was not clear or reflective in the dark at night. Therefore, no contract was formed at all with me as the driver; I was unaware of any parking restrictions and no consideration flowed between the Operator and myself, no agreement was reached nor acceptance of any clear terms at all.

As you can see I have never done this before so all of your help and advice is appreciated.

As it is summertime could they argue that it was not dark at 8.20pm a few weeks ago, which is wasn't or is that irrelevant ?

JamersPad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Remove point 5 if no ANPR. There's no need to query planning consent as it's not something that POPLA will rule on. You need to have a look at point 3 too, as there's a chunk missing.

Purely on a presentational front, I would embolden each of your appeal point headers, helping the assessor spot the 'no GPEOL' paragraph, enabling them to make a quick decision in your favour.

I think this is the part from point 3 that was missing, yes?

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).

JamersPad

Ok, I think I am getting there, slowly lol:

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the 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

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days 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 £100 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.. 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 regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty.

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question, and I believe the signage at this car park is inadequate for the following reasons.

There is no sign on the entrance the car park was 'shrouded in darkness' or 'pitch black' and/or 'not well lit' (you choose the words) and the signage was not capable of being read as it was not clear or reflective in the dark at night. Therefore, no contract was formed at all with me as the driver; I was unaware of any parking restrictions and no consideration flowed between the Operator and myself, no agreement was reached nor acceptance of any clear terms at all. I had to drive back the following day in order to look for these signs, there are only 3 other signs in this particular car park but 2 of these were not visible from where my vehicle was parked, from where my vehicle was parked only one sign on the opposite brick wall would have been visible, In addition, the wording is so small that it would not be reasonable to assume anyone entering the car park has a chance to read and accept any terms and conditions of parking stated on the signage whilst driving in a safe and responsible manner. It is therefore entirely possible, even expected, that drivers would enter the car park without seeing this sign. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

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.

This concludes my appeal. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Corporate Services (Parking Management) fails to address all points above and provide the necessary evidence as requested.

Yours Faithfully,




Finally, I just need to check the wording, as on the sign it says contractual rather than breach of contract, do I need to change any of the above to cover that in your opinions?

Umkomaas

You seem to have failed in comprehensively reading my post #30. You do need to follow advice fully; having to repeat advice is not helpful to other posters in need of assistance from very limited resources.

Stop rushing at things (notwithstanding POPLA deadlines).

Coupon-mad

only one sign on the opposite brick wall would of been visible

Well of course it's not ''would of'', you never have would OF! That's not even English it's uneducated Essex-speak...sorry...I am sure it was just a typo on your part?!

should be: ''only one sign on the opposite brick wall would have been visible''

And your point #3 needs more, saying what you require to see and what you think is wrong in terms of their standing to enforce charges in the courts. You will find lots of examples to copy from in the Newbies thread post #3 link 'How to win at POPLA'. Borrow some wording about the landowner contract.

I would get rid of #4 and #5 completely and just make your main 3 points watertight by copying from the examples linked in the newbies thread.

JamersPad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well of course it's not ''would of'', you never have would OF! That's not even English it's uneducated Essex-speak...sorry...I am sure it was just a typo on your part?!

should be: ''only one sign on the opposite brick wall would have been visible''

And your point #3 needs more, saying what you require to see and what you think is wrong in terms of their standing to enforce charges in the courts. You will find lots of examples to copy from in the Newbies thread post #3 link 'How to win at POPLA'. Borrow some wording about the landowner contract.

I would get rid of #4 and #5 completely and just make your main 3 points watertight by copying from the examples linked in the newbies thread.

It makes complete sense for me to remove point 5 but is point 4 not worth keeping?

Umkomaas

'Would of' is not 'Would have'.

Proppa Eengleesh pleez!

Coupon-mad

JamersPad wrote: »

It makes complete sense for me to remove point 5 but is point 4 not worth keeping?

If re-written maybe. You will see that some examples in the 'How to win at POPLA' link do have a similar sort of final paragraph but not saying 'they can't impersonate a PCN by using words like 'charge notice' - because in fact, they can. That argument won't win at POPLA hence why it's not worth including in those words.