Civil Parking Notice from Car Parking Partnership!

chris_appeals

Hi Folks!

I'm a newbie on the group.

Firstly, would just like to say that this community is awesome. Hat's off to all the members involved and all the great work you've done! :T

I'm really hoping I won't bring down the 100% success rate. I've received a PCN from the dreaded Car Parking Partnership today.

No excuses. It's my fault. I had to rush to get a last minute appointment at the GP and there was no public parking available around the GP so I parked on a road next to nearby estate, which I now know was a resident/estate bay.

When I came out of the GP I was greeted by a dodgy yellow ticket on my windscreen from Car Parking Partnership for £100 with a discounted amount of £60 - A bad start to the day!

I have read the newbie sticky threads and have already drafted up my initial letter to the Car Parking Partnership which I'm ready shoot off to them once/if I receive the Notice to Keeper (in 29-56 days).

I'm just looking through to the letter template for POPLA appeal. Unfortunately, due to my circumstances I'm not sure what I should include in my letter to make it a strong enough case.

Please could someone suggest some strong point/sentences which I should use in my letter to POPLA?

Here is what I have so far - would this be sufficient?

All advice and suggestions are much appreciated.

Many thanks, Chris:j

---

Letter Template to POPLA

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I received a Notice to Keeper from Car Parking Partnership (CPP) on xx xxxxx 2014 for a parking charge of £100 issued on 10 July 2014 for a breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle.

I have denied all liability to CPP. Following rejection of my submission I wish to appeal on the following grounds:


1. CPP have formed no contract with the driver (lack of signage, no consideration/acceptance).
2. CPP have no proprietary interest in the land and no standing.
3. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish 'keeper liability' under PoFA 2012.

Detailed submission

1. CPP signs in this car park are sparse and unclear, to the extent that they are incapable of forming a contract even if the driver had seen and agreed to the terms, which is not the case in this instance. A lack of signs at the entrance to a car park, and unclear wording, is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and creates no contract.


2. It is my belief that CPP have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, CPP must have specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges in the courts, and to make contracts with drivers. I do not believe such a document is in existence. I therefore put CPP to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges. In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 7, This must include assignment of the right for CPP to make contracts with drivers and for CPP to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'witness Statement' or 'site agreement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information set out in 7.1 and 7.2 and I put CPP to strict proof that their contract covers every point in this section of the BPA CoP.


3. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is on two grounds:
(a) The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at 10:50 am on the day in question.


(b) The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor'.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the NTK is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant NTK are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in the NTK wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. As I was not the driver myself, there is no case against me at all so it is, at best, surprising and irksome that CPP are pursuing this matter and wasting my time. I expect POPLA will see the significance of an operator trying to pursue a keeper, in a case where no keeper liability can be established by virtue of the operator's own failures.

In view of the above, I contend that this is an unenforceable penalty and request that my appeal be upheld and the parking charge cancelled.

The_Slithy_Tove

Bit early for POPLA yet, but anyway....

The standard POPLA appeal points which are recommended are based on points of law, and nothing at all to do with what you did or didn't do on the day. In that respect, your case is the same as pretty much all others.


However, for some reason, you have omitted what is by far the most important POPLA appeal point - Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL). Was there a reason for leaving it out. It's a sure fire winner in almost all cases.

chris_appeals

Hi Slithy Tove

Thanks for the reply.

Yes I wasn't sure about GPEOL. In the example that was used in the original template, as follows:

The parking charge of £75 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A staff permit was purchased for this vehicle in September 2013 by the member of staff driving the car on the day of the incident. This permit allows parking in any designated staff car parking area during the period 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2014. Photographic evidence supplied by CPP confirms the location as the staff parking area.

The parking charge should compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges.

In this instance, unpaid charges are nil as a permit for the vehicle was purchased well before the date of issue of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) and was in force at the time. Any breakdown purporting to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss cannot include general business expenses because these would remain the same whether or not there were any alleged breaches of contract by drivers.

I don't have the circumstances of the 'staff permit' which they used in the example as the PCN was issued for parking in residential bay not in retail/work bay. I'm not sure how I could include the GPEOL point based on my circumstances?

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

Thanks, Chris

Coupon-mad

There are quite a few POPLA examples about ordinary bays - such as Park Direct ones like this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65811635#Comment_65811635

You could use most of that 'no GPEOL' paragraph as long as you change it to CPP!

chris_appeals

Dear All!

Exactly 36 days later after the Car Parking Partnership slapped a ticket on my windscreen, I now have the Notice to Keeper.

I tried to share the NTK but this forum wont allow new users to post pictures

Please could you let me know the next steps?

Many thanks
Chris

chris_appeals

Hi

Here is my first draft appeal to Car Parking Partnership. Please could you take a read and let me know if its good to go?

Dear Car Parking Partnership

PCN number CP xxxxxxxxxx

I have received your parking 'invoice' impersonating a parking ticket. I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle.
This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:



1) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.

The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have potentially been suffered by the Landowner.
I put to Car Parking Partnership to provide strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated and how it was caused by this alleged parking event.
This PCN is really about breach of contract, so loss must be shown or the charge is unenforceable. The Notice to Keeper letter refers to 'breach of contract' so the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.

Car Parking Partnership 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 (as listed above) and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this event.

Car Parking Partnership 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. Therefore, the sum they are seeking is not representative of any genuine loss incurred by either the landowner or the operator.


2) Lack of sufficient contractual authority

Car Parking Partnership have no standing as they are an agent, not the landowner. They also have no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts.

I put to Car Parking Partnership to provide strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract. Even if a basic site agreement 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 Car Parking Partnership and their client, containing nothing that could impact on a third party customer.
Also the contract must be with the landowner - not another agent - and must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP and show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that Car Parking Partnership can form contracts with drivers in their own right. The whole contract is required to be produced, in order to ensure whether it is with the actual landowner, whether money changes hands which must be factored into the sum charged.

3) Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract formed.
This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power.
Therefore ALL terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must have been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'



Request to Car Parking Partnership to cancel of unjustified ticket:

On the basis you have failed to create any enforceable contract I request that you cancel this unjustified 'ticket'.

Notification of terms of Rejection letter:
If you chose not to cancel the ticket, under your Trade Body's current Code of Practice you must issue a rejection letter which, in order to answer my appeal, must include:

1. The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?).
As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.

(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).


(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.


(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). Should you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley at independent appeal stage, I will of course point out that it was a flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis is continuing his defence to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.

2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in your own right for this particular contravention.
If you are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showing the restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between yourself and your client and the definition of your status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). Such detail is necessary for me to make an informed decision. Failure to divulge your landowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be deemed as withholding pertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independent appeal stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.

3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves. Consideration from both sides is required for a contract.

4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.

5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.

If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independent appeal in your first reply you will also be reported to your applicable ATA and the DVLA.
A certificate of posting will be obtained for all written communications for this appeal and complaint and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.

Yours,


(Name of Keeper)

Dee140157

If it's a first appeal, just go with the template. Keep the extra information for POPLA. Don't make life too complicated. The more you say now, the more they will try to respond to when they reject your appeal.

chris_appeals

Thanks Dee140157

So the following will be suitable?

Dear Car Parking Partnership


PCN Number: CPxxxxxxxxx


I have received your parking 'invoice' impersonating a parking ticket. I decline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which are required of me as the keeper of the vehicle.
This is my appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:

A) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.

You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts to drivers nor to bring a claim in your own right.

C) Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded and consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties of equal bargaining power. Therefore ALL terms are required to be so prominent and the risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety must have been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

As you have failed to create any enforceable contract I suggest that you cancel this unjustified 'ticket'.
If not, under your Trade Body's current Code of Practice you must issue a rejection letter which, in order to answer my appeal, must include:

1. The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged 'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent or revenue?).
(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and your explanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee when your client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - not allow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal). Should you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley at independent appeal stage, I will of course point out that it was a flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis is continuing his defence to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.

2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site and to bring a claim in your own right for this particular contravention. If you are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showing the restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including any payments between yourself and your client and the definition of your status as agents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). Such detail is necessary for me to make an informed decision. Failure to divulge your landowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be deemed as withholding pertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independent appeal stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreement with a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.

3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves. Consideration from both sides is required for a contract.

4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.

5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. This must not be withheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.

If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independent appeal in your first reply you will also be reported to your applicable ATA and the DVLA. A certificate of posting will be obtained for all written communications for this appeal and complaint and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.



Yours,




(Name Registered Keeper)

Registered Keeper

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's the one for this stage - and some PPCs just fold when they see it!

chris_appeals

Sending the first appeal in the post today, going to get proof of postage. Will keep you updated! :-)

eddy1

does anyone else think there is too much information in the first post by chris_appeals


big brother and all that (PPC's)


can you edit this post chris, not sure how myself but I think you can


I have limited experience on this forum, but starting to get a bit paranoid maybe, someone else more experienced may advise on similar chris


eddy