Warwick fine for parking in a private car park

Redx

send them an email with the popla number etc and ask them to verify it seeing as you are having difficulties with it (and email is free)

However, if you would like further information about the appeals procedure or the current status of your appeal you may contact us on:
Email: [EMAIL="enquiries@popla.org.uk"]enquiries@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL]

Coupon-mad

andreauk2009 wrote: »

Well, working in the IT I don't believe in gremlins here rather than in some mistakes on people system.
That said the code I have seems slightly different from the usual format.

The forth digit should be the year, but in my case it's a 2 ... very strange.

If the best way is to post them avoiding hours on super paid phone number, I am more than happy to go for that avenue. But what would happen if the number I have doesn't exist?

How soon will I hear back from POPLA (regardless what they have to say)?

The fourth digit should not be the year. The seventh digit is the year (4).

Try it again tomorrow and don't ring people up; don't waste time and let your perfectly legit POPLA code expire!

Make sure you were 'submitting an appeal' and not trying to 'upload evidence' first, which some people did which causes this error. If it doesn't work post it instead if you have time before your deadline runs out. Same advice as here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5032502

That thread includes a link to a POPLA form in case you have to appeal by post; the form being the front page and the attachment being your printed appeal stapled (not paper clipped) to it, with the 10 digit code on every single page and the POPLA form stating how many pages are attached.

andreauk2009

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Check code validity here http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/popla-code-checker.html

I checked with this even the first time, and the service returns a valid code.

andreauk2009

Well Well ... just got an answer from POPLA which confirm the code to work fine . They said that if I continue to experience problems I can drop the appeals to their inbox at appeals@popla.org.uk.

I know that email are legally binding in UK, but would be enough in this circumstance?

Coupon-mad

Yes that would be fine if you end up emailing it as they said you could. Make sure the appeal is attached or in the main body of the email of course!

ampersand

Hello andrea -
Are you still determined to leave this in your clause 1, para 6?
' In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about...'
I don't like it at all. It's early in your letter, comes across as smart-alecky. Instead, remind the Assessor[who is reading hundreds of these now]of a current Appeal and your due diligence in carefully reading up on it:

As recently as June 2014, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson stated, in reference to ParkingEye v Beavis, a flawed Small Claims Court decision, now being taken to the Court of Appeal, that.......

pm follows.

andreauk2009

ampersand wrote: »

Hello andrea -
Are you still determined to leave this in your clause 1, para 6?
' In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about...'
I don't like it at all. It's early in your letter, comes across as smart-alecky. Instead, remind the Assessor[who is reading hundreds of these now]of a current Appeal and your due diligence in carefully reading up on it:

As recently as June 2014, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson stated, in reference to ParkingEye v Beavis, a flawed Small Claims Court decision, now being taken to the Court of Appeal, that.......

pm follows.

I wasn't that please too, but as I didn't like how to change. However, it's all gone now as I need to get on a plane for a few weeks and on my return it would have been too late to send it.
Hopefully it won't pregiudicate the result.

ampersand

andrea - have nearly finished, have had more putah probs, but OK now. Can you hang on for 5-10 minutes? I'd still send it in an envelope as a supplementary and obtain your free certificate of posting of course.
Have a LOVELY holiday. I promise I do know how this has been for you.

andreauk2009

ampersand wrote: »

andrea - have nearly finished, have had more putah probs, but OK now. Can you hand on for 5-10 minutes? I'd still send it in an envelope as a supplementary and obtain your free certificate of posting of course.
Have a LOVELY holiday. I promise I do know how this has been for you.

Sorry sent by email yesterday night (the guys at POPLA said I was able to) as I'm on my way to the airport.

ampersand

That's OK then, but I hope you read what I've done.
f.a.o. POPLA

To Whom It May Concern
Re:[scam invoice wording and no.]

Dear Madam/Sir,

Kindly accept that I am not writing in my first language, love English though I do. I apologise for any errors of style or grammar that may follow.

As registered keeper of the vehicle above, I appeal against this speculative invoice on these grounds:

1. Non-genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Unlawful penalty charge
3. ANPR usage and grace period not properly declared
4. Lack of signage
5. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's
6. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper

1. Non-genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The £100 demanded by CEL is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but a facsimile invoice for 1 minute and 29 seconds, incurred within the time taken to obtain a valid 4-hour parking ticket[copy attached. I can and will produce the original in any Court proceedings]

CEL must demonstrate quantifiable loss for any overstay, with a detailed breakdown that must add up to the £100 demanded. Some element of loss might have been claimed had no valid ticket been purchased and clearly displayed in the vehicle, but this is not the case.

The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident.

CEL cannot change this requirement at will. They must show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss justifying this charge. No subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may later devise is admissible.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''!

Normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. do not flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the speculative invoice not been issued. I am saying that normal business overheads apply even if no vehicles breach any terms at all.

Neither is this speculative invoice 'commercially justified'.
As recently as June 2014, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson stated, in reference to ParkingEye v Beavis, a flawed Small Claims Court decision, now being taken to the Court of Appeal, that

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that Courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the Courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.

2. Unlawful penalty charge

Since there is no demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract as been alleged for 1 minute and 29 seconds, it can only be that this 'charge' is unlawful.

CEL could format the letter as an invoice or request for monies, yet they choose 'Charge Notice', impersonating an official Penalty Charge Notice, which can only be issued by Police and local authorities.
As found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014 Appeal, speculative parking invoices are not recoverable in contract law.

3. ANPR usage and grace period not properly declared

Following the receipt of the NTK, the registered keeper has visited the site.

-Drivers are not made aware of the use of the ANPR system.
-There is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for', as required.

It seems a 10 minutes countdown commences when a car passes the entry barriers. By the time a driver locates a suitable space[not immediate, nor easy], then parks[especially considering the narrow space for turns and manoeuvring]much of the given time has already elapsed. It is unlikely drivers rush to pay the amount due in time as they haven't been correctly or differently informed. Even the machines require walking to locate and pay.

This is also in breach of Appendix B the BPA Code of Practice (Mandatory Entrance Signs) which requires signage with full terms to be readable at eye level for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.

4 Lack of signage

CEL posted photographic evidence of a sign including the T&C the driver allegedly ‘infringed.’ This sign is placed high up and just close to the payment machine at the very back of the car park.

At the time of the alleged infringement, no sign of any kind, let alone prominence, was at or near the entrance indicating the amount due for parking nor any other terms & conditions that could have been seen in normal light conditions.

An unhappy driver, wanting to leave having read the T&C and finding them unacceptable, would likely breach the terms without parking and before having left the car park.

Under Appendix B Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'Signs should be readable and understandable at all times.’

5. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's

CEL Ltd do not own this car park and are merely agents of the landowner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters CEL have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper.

I put CEL to strict proof that they have locus standi to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts for breach of contract. I demand CEL produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and CEL.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County 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, which 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.

This case is the same.

If CEL produces a redacted, post-dated or post-signed 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract, then I will show that these have been debunked in other recent Court cases.

Any such document, purporting to be a witness statement, must be examined to determine full BPA compliance or show sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.

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.

6 – Non-compliant Notice to Keeper.

No keeper liability established under POFA2 2012.
The NTK completely misinforms a registered keeper of rights to appeal, alleging that any payment beyond 28 working days will result in CEL forwarding the account to a Debt Recovery Agency.

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this speculative invoice fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if CEL Ltd. fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.

y/f
-andrea, off on Happy Hols :-)