Premier Parking Solutions Rejected Appeal POPLA next stop?

Dee140157

Link to PPS appeal rejection letter.

[url]Https://www.dropbox.com/s/32nged9cursi1a8/PPS appeal rejection letter.pdf[/url]

Coupon-mad

Here you go, have written it now and people can use this to try to get around PPS' shiny new 'post-estimate of actual loss' manufactured to try to suit POPLA!

Please check it, proof read it and amend it is needed - and in particular, check your Notice to Keeper. Is yours like the other one I copied this from, does it not mention POPLA at all? If yours is different you will need to re-write the NTK section to suit.



Dear POPLA,
verification code 686xxxxxxx
My appeal as registered keeper of the vehicle, comprises these points:

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.

3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff.

These points are explained below:

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards.
To quote Assessor Chris Adamson, from a very similar POPLA decision v PPS which shows their true intentions behind their charges, earlier in 2014:
''... ‘No valid ticket or permit displayed’... The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. In this case, I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking. The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss. I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made.Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits.

...It seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.'' Chris Adamson, Assessor (Feb 2014).

I have found another recent POPLA case v PPS (at the same car park as my charge relates to, same contravention) which gives the game away about PPS' true intentions in advance. This was POPLA decision reference 6860024043 in February 2014, when Assessor Nozir Uddin decided to allow the appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This was because PPS' intentions prior to parking charges being issued at that site, were stated to be that the charge was 'a sum in the nature of a contractual fee rather than a sum for the breach of it'. And yet the signage and rejection letter gave away the fact it was really a matter of breach of contract which required a GPEOL. In that case, PPS tried to argue both scenarios - which cannot be allowed, they cannot say it was either one or the other depending upon which suits. So in order to show what PPS' real intentions were for their charges, prior to my vehicle being parked at this site, here are some excerpts from PPS' statement regarding POPLA case 6860024043:
''The amount sought as a PCN is a term of the contract rather than a sum for the breach of it. This contractual agreement is clearly worded on our warning signage.''
''With regards to the claim that there has been no loss suffered by the company, we consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge and as part of a contractual agreement. ''

So PPS' stated intentions earlier this year were that the charges making up PCNs of £100 issued at Didcot Station car park, were designed to be a contractual fee; a sum in the nature of a parking charge. The blue sign lists certain fees under the heading 'tariff' and £100 is not one of them. However, I have no idea from the Notice to Keeper how much of the tariff remained unpaid (if at all). This small sum, or a percentage of it, would be the only 'contractual sum' in the alleged contract which can represent consideration. A PCN for £100 is not recoverable in this instance, however PPS try to slant the calculations.

The point I am making is that the suggestion that their charges are based on any loss is untrue because this was not their stated intention in advance. But recently PPS have decided to try their luck by pretending that their intention all along was to charge for loss. Even worse, this approach fooled POPLA on at least two occasions until robust appeals exposing the truth achieved a more measured view, as in POPLA code 6861754004 (PPS again) where Assessor Ricky Powell noticed the heavily duplicated and frankly ridiculous staffing costs:

''I am not satisfied that the pre-estimate of loss supplied by the Operator reflects the charge issued. I find that the ‘appeal writing’ loss asserted is duplicated in two heads of loss. The ‘Appeals staff’ appeals writing costs are included in the sum for £9.51. However, there are further appeal writing costs included in the ‘Management’ costs, which total £71.65. It has not been explained how the individual heads of loss included under the heading ‘Management’ are calculated. It is also impossible to determine what contribution the appeal writing costs contribute to the total of £71.65. Therefore, I cannot find that the total costs for ‘Management’ are substantiated and so must disregard them from the total genuine pre-estimate of loss. The total pre-estimate after subtracting the above £71.65 is £31.18. I find that this does not substantially amount to the issued £100 charge and that it does not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss caused by the Appellant’s breach. Therefore, I find that the parking charge is not enforceable in this case. '' (Ricky Powell, Assessor, August 2014).

It seems to me that PPS have tried to mislead POPLA to gain pecuniary advantage against motorists who have all paid the tariff and can prove it. This is unsupportable and unprofessional, as is the massaged 'loss statement' that they now suddenly use to try to magically meet the sum of the PCN. In simple terms:

- PPS must think I was born yesterday if they think I believe that they 'thought there was an initial loss' when yet another of PPS' extra-flimsy tickets slipped.
- It beggars belief that managers and directors would spend hours on each POPLA case. There are too many layers of repeated checks by highly paid staff to be credible.
- PPS use a template POPLA 'GPEOL' summary & response so it is not individually written nor even applicable to my own case at all.
- staff/NI are all tax-deductible costs of running a business and do not directly flow from one alleged breach in a car park where there was no initial loss.
- PPS staff do not just handle appeals, their work includes dealing with clients/permits, and Directors have supervisory/staffing/new business and Management duties so I am not liable to pay their wages nor to line the pockets of PPS owner with yet more profits. The sum of £71.65 is laughable in their GPEOL statement.
- POPLA related 'work' cannot apply to each PCN as a 'genuine pre-estimate', because only 1% or 2% of cases ever get to POPLA stage.
- Since the vast majority will never to go to appeal, let alone as far as POPLA, this is comparable to cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs. In those cases, POPLA routinely dismiss those heads on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable'. The same applies to 'POPLA costs'.
- If I had not appealed at all, instead paying between day 14 and day 28 then the full cost of the PCN would have applied. Why? How does PPS' GPEOL explain that?
- The other 'business costs' (including a DVLA fee that in fact costs £2.50 and stationery/postage) cannot be added since this does not flow from all PCNs.

Where an Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach and a large percentage of the amount comes from staff costs, they must be able to justify those heads as relating to every typical PCN (whether appealed or not). In the case of PPS they include several layers of checks on the work of other staff members - I would contend this is an unnecessary amount of checks and that the Operator has not shown that the items referred to are substantially linked to the loss incurred by every breach.

Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."

As PPS have since changed their GPEOL calculations from the version presented to POPLA Assessors just a few months ago, then I contend that the calculation (even if it were a more credible effort than this one) must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. As such, the latest effort by PPS is disingenuous and is merely an over-inflated and duplicated new 'calculation of alleged actual loss, made afterwards'. It is not enforceable according to the words of Mr Greenslade.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.
The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is not properly given under the POFA 2012. The NTK does not tell me as keeper what the contravention was and how much of the tariff allegedly remains unpaid for what length of parking period. In this car park there are multiple possibilities and the NTK fails to confirm me of the position (which cannot be 'either/or'). So, I am left to wonder, are PPS saying that the driver failed to pay any tariff, or paid a partial tariff/overstayed, or paid with RingGo but suffered a failure of that system, or perhaps input the car registration wrongly, or paid in full but the P&D ticket was not seen on display? The NTK fails to tell me.

Further non-compliance with the POFA is the omission of the following wording as found in paragraph 8 of schedule 4:

'‘(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’
(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available''

In addition, the Notice contains misleading wording which not only states a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist but also breaches the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14: 'Misrepresentation of authority':

14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority.'

In bold at the top of the Notice is the underlined word 'Important' and therein follows this misleading imaginary deadline and threat:

'Failure to pay the parking charge within 14 days of receiving it, without reasonable excuse, could lead to legal proceedings being issued.'

This impersonates Police wording and is patently not true. There is no 14 day deadline at all and a person does not need 'reasonable excuse' not to pay or appeal a private parking charge.

This is compounded by another large font paragraph in bold: 'Only payment in full will prevent us from taking further action'. It is utterly misleading and untrue that the keeper's ONLY option is to pay in full because of course there is the option to appeal. POPLA will notice that the NTK completely omits any details (even on the back) about how to appeal and the keeper's right to POPLA. There is nothing about it at all, so I hope that POPLA may be minded to report this serious omission to the BPA Ltd.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has previously confirmed that a NTK is 'fundamental to establishing keeper liability' and if the Notice is not properly given it is therefore a nullity. It is a strict requirement of POFA that all statutory conditions must be met and stated wording included, in order for keeper liability to be established. This Notice to Keeper was not properly 'given'.

3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.
I require PPS to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. I believe PPS have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I believe they are merely a commercial agent for the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing. A PPS 'witness statement' would not refute this appeal point, since the following issues would be hidden:
- whether the contract allows for a contractual fee model
- whether this contravention is actually stated in the contract
- whether PPS are an agent and when the contract expires/renews
- the site boundary and scope of the operation
- what the charges are for each alleged contravention
- any 'revenue sharing' which must be reflected in the calculations

To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either! If a witness statement is produced then I will be rebutting it.

4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff.
This car park has various signage designs, including a dark blue one which is difficult to read at all when driving, and a black and white one which would only be readable if the font size was larger. The only tariff mentioned is small sum between £1 and £6 as far as I can see - there is no £100 tariff. The driver cannot have entered into any contract to pay the amount of the PCN as a tariff. Where it is mentioned, the £100 is in such small font that the onerous term of the £100 PCN is not sufficiently explicit to form a contract that a driver must have seen when paying.

This concludes my appeal.

PizzaOvenKing

Hi all,
Although not the OP, I did hit upon this thread as a result of a search for the exact same parking provider (PPS) and the same location. As I was in the exact same position I used the template you had created and sent my appeal to Popla. Popla have agreed to review my appeal in the next 5 days (didn't want to specify an exact date in this thread incase it gave them information about me)

Anyway on Friday I got a letter which is PPS's response to the appeal. Its a pretty meaty document with lots of pictures of signage and my car.
I wanted to post the contents of their "evidence" for you to review. My main concern is there pre-estimate of loss seems to be made up to include the appeals process which isn't a genuine pre estimate of loss is it?
Am i doomed to pay this one?

I've not scanned every page as some of it would reveal my identity through pictures of my car of a copy of the ticket that they claim was left on my vehicle i also haven't included any of the NTK's as they have pictures etc but if they would help then please do ask for them.

Any comments welcomed.

Thank You


hxxps://xxx.dropbox.com/s/i133n7gji75e3gk/PPS%20Evidence1.pdf?dl=0

bazster

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i133n7gji75e3gk/PPS%20Evidence1.pdf?dl=0

Voyager101

Starting down a similar route - any update much appreciated

Dee140157

Pizzaovenkon and a voyager 101 you actually need to start your own threads if you have questions to ask.

Read the newbie thread and post any specific questions you have.

Explain where you have go to in the process so far.

Coupon-mad

PizzaOvenKing wrote: »

Hi all,
Although not the OP, I did hit upon this thread as a result of a search for the exact same parking provider (PPS) and the same location. As I was in the exact same position I used the template you had created and sent my appeal to Popla. Popla have agreed to review my appeal in the next 5 days (didn't want to specify an exact date in this thread incase it gave them information about me)

Anyway on Friday I got a letter which is PPS's response to the appeal. Its a pretty meaty document with lots of pictures of signage and my car.
I wanted to post the contents of their "evidence" for you to review. My main concern is there pre-estimate of loss seems to be made up to include the appeals process which isn't a genuine pre estimate of loss is it?
Am i doomed to pay this one?

I've not scanned every page as some of it would reveal my identity through pictures of my car of a copy of the ticket that they claim was left on my vehicle i also haven't included any of the NTK's as they have pictures etc but if they would help then please do ask for them.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/i133n7gji75e3gk/PPS%20Evidence1.pdf?dl=0

Thanks for posting those photos of the machines and signs at Didcot car park.

You should start a new thread - just click on the blue 'new thread' button on page one - my signature and Dee's signature both tell you where to click to get there to see the top threads from today and where to add your own new thread!

You should be sending a quick email to POPLA to rebut this rubbish. Have you shown us every page because their sentences are cut off half way through and you haven't shown their full doomed attempt at a rebuttal of your point about the NTK not being compliant. Amusing that they have cited the WRONG paragraph from Schedule 4! If you cited paragraph 8 like in the above example, you were correct - but they've quoted paragraph 9 which isn't relevant to a windscreen PCN. One would expect a PPC to know POFA better than a motorist but hey ho, that's not the case! They have also said the 'amount of the unpaid parking charge (tariff) is irrelevant' but it is completely relevant to a NTD and a NTK, it's a prescriptive and mandatory requirement of Schedule 4.

PizzaOvenKing and Voyager101, you are both quite safe in your OWN new threads (NOT HERE) to post the other pages including the photos, just cover the car reg and your name/address with a post it note/bit of paper.

If you ask how to start a new thread you haven't read my post.


NO REPLIES HERE EXCEPT FROM THE OP, xxdaix!

xxdaix what was your outcome please?

xxdaix

Hi Coupon Mad.

Quick update. My appeal to POPLA was due last week however it was delayed, (not that I was informed mind) and this has allowed PPS to add further weight to their case.

This is the email I received from the nice people at POPLA.


Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find additional information from the operator who issued the PCN.

Your case has been set aside for 14 days.

Kind regards,

POPLA Administration Team.

From: Susan Aylwin [mailto:sa@pps.uk.com]
Sent: 1x September 2014
To: enquiries
Cc: operator evidence; Carly Allen
Subject: FW: POPLA xxxxxxxxxxx


Dear Sirs

We have noticed that some adjudicators have been misinterpreting our Genuine Pre-estimation of Loss. Please find further evidence attached as an amended Genuine Pre-estimation of Loss which clearly explains our GPEL showing that there is no duplication of costs. All admin staff costs are wholly separate to Appeal staff costs, dealing with wholly different stages.

I note that this appeal was due to be adjudicated by 1X September 2014 but as it has not been, we assume our further evidence will be taken into consideration.

Regards

Sue Blacksmith
POPLA Appeals Manager

I will upload the evidence once I've removed personal info from it.
But this doesn't seem fair to me, can I provide further evidence to POPLA to support my case including the recently won cases against this operator at this very sight using the same appeals letter??

Thanks

Umkomaas

Let us see it after redaction - it can quickly be rebutted. They can't be adding 'Appeals Staff Costs' into the basic PCN charge for the initial parking 'infringement' as less than 2% of all PCNs end up at POPLA.

Rather a damning indictment of what PPCs understand about contract law and GPEOL.

Stand in the corner time wearing pointy hat with large D on it, Susan. Lacklustre knowledge.

She can't even get her name right. Email from: Susan Aylwin, signed off by Susan Blacksmith. :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

can I provide further evidence to POPLA to support my case including the recently won cases against this operator at this very sight using the same appeals letter??

Yes you too can rebut their new evidence! Don't rush it - let's see what drivel they've put! They cannot re-write their GPEOL after the event.

Sue Blacksmith you are letting women down sending such drivel for such a firm of ex-clampers - get yourself a real job you daft moo.