named driver to reset clock

notparked

the ppc is highview

the appeal is to the ppc

it is copied from 'newbies' just changed to 'night conditions'

expecting appeal denied

notparked

the appeal rejection letter has been received ,
I used the appeal letter from the newbie sticky
here is the rejection letter from ppc

---

[FONT=&quot]Dear Sir,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reference :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Registration :[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Case Date :[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your correspondence concerning the above stated Parking Charge Notice. This PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme. Given that this is a pay to park site and that the signage is displayed in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations, the fact that you were seemingly unaware of this is not considered a mitigating circumstance for appeal. In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected. We can confirm that we will hold the charge at the current rate for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence, after which the full amount will be due.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although we have now rejected your appeal, you may still have recourse to appeal to Parking On Private Land Appeals (POPLA), an independent appeals service. POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge. To appeal to POP LA, please go to their website "usual popla web address" and follow the instructions. If you would rather deal with this matter by post, please contact our Appeals Office and we will send you the necessary paperwork. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your POPLA reference number is: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please note that if your appeal does not relate to the above criteria or is rejected by POPLA for any reason, you may be requested to pay the charge at the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]full: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]amount and will no longer qualify for payment at the reduced rate.[/FONT]

---

changed popla web address link

Is following the online popla instructions the way to go
or getting the paperwork from the ppc and dealing by post?
Also do I re-use the same appeal letter from the sticky newbie thread to send to POPLA, which is the same one which I sent to the PPC?

Umkomaas

1. Appeal online. The 'paperwork' to which they refer can be downloaded from the POPLA website if you wanted to appeal snail mail.

2. This is somewhat misinformation. POPLA has decided on many other points than this narrow range suggested by Highview. When you get round to completing your appeal you will be required to tick boxes relating to the 'grounds'; tick all but the 'stolen' one.

POPLA will only consider cases on the grounds that the Parking Charge exceeded the appropriate amount, that the vehicle was not improperly parked or had been stolen, or that you were otherwise not liable for the Parking Charge.

3. You need to read and digest post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky 'How to win at POPLA' section. Your POPLA appeal will need to be a further elaboration on points raised in your initial appeal (plus others) - have a search for any Highview examples already linked in the sticky, or just use the forum search engine.

notparked

thanks for the quick reply Umkomaas.
Will do 3. tomorrow

thanks

Coupon-mad

There's a Highview one in there among the 'How to win at POPLA' links and a new one I just edited & created regarding CP Plus (a different firm but IMHO it has the latest and strongest wording about why it's not a GPEOL). You could use the points from that CP Plus case in the main - except the stuff talking about a MSA. You'll see when you look at it that it's got more than your average Highview example.

notparked

[FONT=&quot]please find below my first draft of POPLA appeal letter[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Could someone proof read it and post suggestions and comments etc. please.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]thanks Coupon-mad but I had just finished this when I saw your post.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As this appeal is by the driver for a pay car park I wasn't sure whether your CP plus was as relevant, but if you think it is I will re-vamp where necessary.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Highview Parking Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN: 25 October 2013

I as the driver of the vehicle have received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £85 with an additional charge of £40 if not paid within 28 days , but discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days. The reason given for this charge is that Highview do not have evidence that a sufficient parking payment was made to cover the full duration of te visit.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This issue date on the invoice is 30 July 2014.

As the driver of the vehicle, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
4. Signage
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy
7. Business Rates
8. Summary
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The demand for a payment of £85 (discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days) plus additional charge of £40if not paid within 28 days, is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The driver declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none as this is a free car park) by Highview Parking Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Highview Parking Ltd. lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £2.50 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £35 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Businessman Paul Walters, owner of Glass Street and Marsh Street car parks, urges motorists to appeal against charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He said: "I brought in Highview because I would go down in the evening and see 30 cars parked and only four would have tickets. I have all-day parking so it's difficult to patrol every hour at all times of the day and night. I've worked very hard and built the business up from nothing[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. I just want to get people to pay the fee[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which to be fair is one of the cheapest and most convenient all-day parking in Hanley."

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"I appreciate all my customers and will continue to provide cheap and convenient parking," he said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. No authority to levy charges[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Highview Parking Ltd. must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Highview Parking Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the Highview Parking Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the Highview Parking Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Highview Parking Ltd. Even if a basic contract 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 Highview Parking Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Highview Parking Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Highview Parking Ltd. Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Highview Parking Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Signage
The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from. It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Reported By The Sentinel Posted: February 21, 2014 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Businessman Paul Walters, owner of Glass Street and Marsh Street car parks, urges motorists to appeal against charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul Walters, of Newcastle, said he was upset that some drivers may have been sent fines despite paying for their stay.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Mr Walters said [/FONT][FONT=&quot]he would put up bigger signs[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to ensure his customers are aware of what they need to do to avoid fines.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot]6. Unlawful Penalty Charge [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for the car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Businessman Paul Walters, owner of Glass Street and Marsh Street car parks, urges motorists to appeal against charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He said: "I brought in Highview because I would go down in the evening and see 30 cars parked and only four would have tickets. I have all-day parking so it's difficult to patrol every hour at all times of the day and night. I've worked very hard and built the business up from nothing[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. I just want to get people to pay the fee[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which to be fair is one of the cheapest and most convenient all-day parking in Hanley."
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

7. ANPR Accuracy
Highview Parking Ltd. are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times – it’s vital that Highview Parking Ltd. produce evidence in response to these points.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There was a report in the local press about two Highview car parks, which included this particular one, where it was well publicised that there were problems with ANPR and pay machines.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So much so that the owner was quoted in the article that, ‘he urged people to appeal their parking notices’.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Reported By The Sentinel Posted: February 21, 2014 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Businessman Paul Walters, owner of Glass Street and Marsh Street car parks, urges motorists to appeal against charges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul Walters, of Newcastle, said he was upset that some drivers may have been sent fines despite paying for their stay.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. Business Rates[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., I do not believe that HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD. has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.
I put Highview Parking Ltd. to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at Marsh Street car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

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

Yours faithfully[/FONT]

Umkomaas

Just a quick skim-read from me, given it's time to climb the wooden hill.

1. You need to put in the Beavis rebuttal, just in case they try to play the 'commercial justification' card. Place it in your GPEOL paragraph.

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 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. Get rid of all the Paul Walters stuff. POPLA will have less than zero interest in that; it detracts from rather than enhances your appeal.

3. Ditch the 'Business Rates' appeal paragraph. Old school now; POPLA have never bitten on this; it has nothing to do with contract law, PoFA or the BPA CoP. If you want to raise this and cause the PPC some mischief, raise it with your local Valuation Office.

HTH.

Coupon-mad

That's quite an old template you've found. Surely it wasn't one of the links in the Newbies thread under 'How to win at POPLA', not with 'Business rates' in it and calling the NTK a 'Notice to Appellant' in error? I have no idea where this one keeps getting dredged up from and if it's in the newbies thread I will replace it.

notparked

Hi Coupon-mad , click on post #3 How to win at POPLA (or at IAS)
takes you to #15 where I selected Highview

Coupon-mad

OK - apologies for that old one - I have just removed it as it's from 2013! Stuff about 'business rates' and 'notice to appellant' is all wrong. Use and adapt a better one for an ANPR camera appeal, such as a Parking Eye one (or the new CP Plus one I wrote this week) and change the PPC's name to Highview. Obviously if you choose the CP Plus one you can't copy stuff about it being a Motorway services though! But the GPEOL argument in the new CP Plus link is the best I could come up with and has quotes & case law relevant to argue about 'no GPEOL' in a way they are unlikely to be able to rebut, IMHO.