POPLA appeal advice

monkeylamb

Hello everyone

New to this so sorry if I'm posting this wrongly.

I have been issued with a parking charge notice and could do with some advice, please. I have read the advice and guidance in the sticky.

The situation is this: I parked in my college car park with a valid permit taped to my dashboard and clearly visible through the front windows of the car, and through the windscreen when viewed from the wing but not visible by viewing the car from the end of the bonnet (if that makes sense). I have received a parking charge notice stating that "the vehicle did not display a valid permit." I did not realise that the operator's sign in the car park states that the permit must be placed in the windscreen or window of the vehicle and wonder if I have any grounds for appeal to POPLA, given that my permit was on the dashboard. I did make representation to the parking operator, with photographic evidence of the permit on the dashboard but they have rejected my representation without giving any reasons. On neither the parking charge notice nor the letter rejecting representation was it mentioned that my permit was displayed on the dashboard and not in the windscreen so I am not 100% sure why my representation was rejected.

I have drafted the following to submit to POPLA. If I go through POPLA and lose I will have to pay £75. If I pay now it will be a £30 charge. Would you mind having a look and telling me if it is ok or if I am totally wide of the mark? Apologies, it's quite long...

"I am the registered keeper. On XXX my vehicle was parked within a designated parking bay with a valid parking permit taped to the dashboard and clearly visible through the front windows of the vehicle. I received a parking charge notice stating that “the vehicle did not display a valid permit.” I made representation to the Operator, stating that the permit was clearly visible through the front windows of the vehicle and included photographic evidence of this claim. My representation was rejected but with no reason or evidence given for this rejection. I wish, therefore, to appeal. My reasons are as follows:



1) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The parking charge notice states that “parking within this property is regulated by the contract conditions displayed on the signage.” This wording seems to indicate that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the Parking Operator, must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. However, there is no loss flowing from this alleged parking contravention because the car park is free to all college students/employees/visitors who have a relevant permit, which is free to obtain upon completion of the necessary paperwork and therefore the 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 but there is no such loss in this case. 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. Normal operational costs cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. As the operator can have suffered no loss as a result of the alleged parking contravention, I believe that the charge is punitive, unreasonable and unenforceable.

2) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
I believe that the Operator has no title in the land on which my vehicle was parked. In the absence of such title, the Operator must, in order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPS Code of Practice, have assignment of rights from the landowner (not merely an “agreement” with a non-landholder managing agent) to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the Operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence.

I therefore put the Operator to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between the Operator and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and I can check that it allows the Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention etc) and may well be signed by a non-landowner such as another agent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

3) The reason given on the parking charge notice for assigning the notice is incorrect
The parking charge notice states that the parking attendant “had reasonable cause to believe that the following breach of terms and conditions occurred – (g) the vehicle did not display a valid permit”. My email of representation sent to the Operator on XXX includes photographic evidence of the clear visibility of the valid parking permit, displayed on the dashboard.

The Operator replied stating that “the vehicle in question was observed by our patrol officer as failing to clearly display a valid parking permit.” Although I provided evidence to substantiate my claim that a valid permit was clearly visible, the Operator provided no evidence to substantiate its claim to the contrary. As the vehicle was displaying a valid permit, clearly visible through the front windows of the vehicle, I therefore contend that the reason given for the parking charge notice is incorrect.

Given that there is no genuine estimate of loss; that the Operator has not provided any evidence of their right to pursue charges in their own right including at court level; that there was a valid permit clearly displayed in the vehicle and that, therefore, an incorrect reason for assigning the parking charge notice is given on both the notice itself and the response to my representation, I ask POPLA to uphold my appeal"

Would be very grateful for any advice on how to improve this or whether I should just pay the £30.

Many thanks.

Dee140157

It would be useful to know which PPC this is as it helps direct you to the best appeal. It may well be worth putting in a point about signage. You may not think it, it the signage is almost always non-compliant. If you have time it may well be worth getting a photo of the signage . Remember the onus is on them to prove it is compliant, not you to disprove.

We are confident you will win at POPLA since you had a permit and there is no loss. To the PPC for you parking there.

Have a look at this appeal and see if there is anything extra you can adapt for yours

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65788210#Comment_65788210

Good GPEOL on this one too
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4995312

monkeylamb

Thanks for this Dee 140157. The parking operator was Total Parking Solutions. I do have a photo of the signage but am not sure how to present this to POPLA as I have no idea whether it is compliant or not!

Coupon-mad

I have drafted the following to submit to POPLA. If I go through POPLA and lose I will have to pay £75. If I pay now it will be a £30 charge. Would you mind having a look and telling me if it is ok or if I am totally wide of the mark?

Welcome to the forum; a good first draft and good research which always helps. You are not wide of the mark at all - stop looking at that £30 bribe! You wont be paying a penny.

I would certainly always have 'unclear signage' as an extra paragraph purely to make them have to show POPLA maps and photos of the signs which can trip them up. You could also add the 'unreasonable/unfair contract terms' paragraph #5 I just wrote here and adapt it to suit the unfairness of your case but using all the case law and quotes for yours too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65951653#Comment_65951653

and you can use/adapt #2 for your 'unclear signage' point, including quoting Lord Denning (you don't need photos of the signs nor even to 'prove' anything). POPLA Assessors are law graduates and I bet they appreciate relevant arguments & case law quotes better than the drivel they have to read from PPCs!

Dee140157

If you want to post a picture here, someone can read it over, but to be honest it's not always worth it.

It's not just about what it says, it's the font, the size of the print, the way it is written, how high the signs are, what sign there are on entry to car park, whether they can be read in the dark etc etc.

If you want to post it, upload it eg to tinypic.com and post here with http:// missing.

But you could just go with a standard signage point and it will be fine.

monkeylamb

Thanks Coupon-mad and Dee140157. I'll use your advice and submit my appeal this evening! Thanks for such prompt replies. I really appreciate it.