JAS Pritvate parking appeal

Showstopper88

I don’t have any reservation details so they can’t have that anyway, I’ve lived near this car park for years and actually didn’t know it was their car park, writing is tiny on the signs that are way too high
So I should confirm I was driving the car then as everything I have read up till now says to not admit that?
Sorry to clarify as I want to make sure I don’t trip myself up when replying

Redx

the problem here is that if you are not the RK , you are ensuring they dont try and fleece the RK for the money, who may then hit you with fees etc , in indirect free kick but where you end up in pain

so as its a hire or lease car, you are using driver liability which is true anyway, to ensure that YOU beat them and ensure that it goes no further or go sneakily behind your back

check the bottom of post #1 in the NEWBIES THREAD, there is a complete paragraph about it

not reading the NEWBIES thread is where most newbies fail

bazster

And complain to BPA Ltd. and DVLA that JAS have responded to an appeal without including a PoPLA code.

Showstopper88

bazster wrote: »

And complain to BPA Ltd. and DVLA that JAS have responded to an appeal without including a PoPLA code.

should I copy Jas into that complaint as well? or tell them i intend to complain?

bazster

By all means tell them you are complaining. There's no need to copy them on it.

You should say something to JAS along these lines:

I have sent you an appeal and have nothing further to add to it. You must now either uphold my appeal, or reject it and send a PoPLA code. I have already complained to DVLA and BPA Ltd. that you have replied to my appeal without issuing a PoPLA Code.

I will of course appeal to PoPLA (using an internet copy and paste format) on grounds that you know full well will see my appeal upheld, so you might as well save yourselves £27 and cancel the charge now.

Coupon-mad

Showstopper88 wrote: »

should I copy Jas into that complaint as well? or tell them i intend to complain?

Copy them in but have you given your full name & postal address & said you were driving (WHICH YOU MUST). I did explain why, it's because it's a lease car.

Showstopper88

Thanks guys for all the support and info,
I have sent a response that’s included everything people have mentioned today also have gave them my details and spoke to my lease company telling them not to pay if the come calling,
Guess its just sit and wait now

Showstopper88

Ok guys


Received my answer from JAS and as expected they declined it so I have started putting together my POPLA appeal after viewing/stealing the successful bits from here Any tips of anything else I should add into the letter.

---

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: JAS Parking Charge Notice xxxxxxxxxx, POPLARef: xxxxxxxxx

I am the driver and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from JAS. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1- No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2- No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3- Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement
4- The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between JAS and the driver

• No genuine pre-estimate of loss
  
  The car park at this site is free and there was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. In addition, the carpark was being used in its intended way, ie I was inside the hotel at the time! JAS notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent)can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that JAS charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
  The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.
  
  JAS and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79.Indeed I expect JAS might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".
  
  No doubt JAS will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a Parking car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operation respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''
  
  My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.
• No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
  
  JAS do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, Iassert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against JAS which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.
  
  In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the BrentfordCounty Court 23/10/2013 District Judge Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. My case is the same.
  
  3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement
  
  Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require JAS to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.
  
  If JAS produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that JAS witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest JAS don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.
• The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between JAS and the driver
  
  I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because JAS are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract(consideration/offer and acceptance). 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. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) JAS have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform JAS to cancel the PCN.



Yours faithfully,

Dee140157

First of all point 2, JAS never issued a notice to keeper as you appealed as driver of after a windscreen ticket since it was a lease car. (The correct course of action in this case). Just reword as notice to driver.


Otherwise looks ok. Let someone else check though.

Redx

check it against this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4917603 , but ensure that if you have appealed as the driver (or keeper) , your appeal says the same (not registered keeper)