named driver to reset clock

notparked

[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 Driver[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
4. Signage
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy

[/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 £40 if 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.''
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]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]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]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]8. Summary[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
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

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.

As CM said previously, there is no such document as 'Notice to Appellant' and as such reference to it diminishes your case.

You need to fully understand what it is you've copied and pasted and be able to actuate the advice given without us having to repeat things to correct omissions/errors already pointed out.

And please get rid of this obsequious sentence at the end of each appeal section. Once at the end of the overall appeal is more than enough.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Fergie76

Plus I wouldn't 'respectfully' request anything of them...

notparked

could I have your comments/views on this version please?



[FONT=&quot]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 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Failure to invoke Keeper Liability[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Signage
5. ANPR Accuracy

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. The charge and Highview's latest 'GPEOL statement' is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The demand has no relationship to any genuine pre-estimate of loss that could have been suffered by the landowner or the Operator, flowing from an average PCN issued at that place. If Highview are alleging that an overstay gives rise to a small tariff then that tariff alone plus a fixed £2.50 to obtain keeper's data from the DVLA would be the only reasonable sum that an Operator can potentially claim as a typical sum of the heads of cost that actually arise in all cases. And that would only be possible if the driver has been fully informed of that sum, on very clear notices, in advance of parking. This was not the case.

£85 is a figure 'plucked out of the air' by Highview because the BPA sets £100 as the ceiling. My proposition is that £85 was chosen mainly because it happens to be a figure the BPA feel is a 'tolerable' amount to impose on motorists, when compared to PCNs issued by Councils on street under statute. There is, of course, no valid comparison with a private firm alleging 'breach' in order to maximise their own profits but the BPA admitted to the Government that comparison with Council PCNs was the thinking behind their figure. The OFT warned the BPA that a charge for breach would still have to pass consumer law tests of fairness, transparency and that it must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report prepared by the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, he 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."

If Highview present what they describe as a GPEOL statement I require them to show documentary evidence regarding exactly when this 'pre-estimate of loss' was discussed with the landowner or at any substantive meeting within the Operator's Senior Management team. How and when were these calculations made and on what basis? Bearing in mind how many of their cases actually go to POPLA, what steps were taken to account for the 98% which do not? I put Highview to strict proof that they had such a meeting and did factor in only a small (say 2%) pro-rata calculation of the staff costs of defending a POPLA appeal, due to the minuscule percentage of PCNs that invoke those costs.

If they cannot answer/show this - and if there was no meeting to set out the basis and reasoning behind the £85 charge - then there was never a pre-estimate of loss discussion at all, as was found in April 2013 in case 1IR65128 Brookfield Aviation Int. Ltd. v Van Boekel, where by HHJ Hand QC concluded in his summary at 94:
''I do not believe the evidence...that there was ever an attempt at a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I have found that there was no meeting in 2007...it seems to me that a conclusion that there was never any attempt at a genuine pre-estimate of loss is of some significance...Finally, the fact that the figure was arrived at by reference to what pilots might be prepared to tolerate...shows to my mind that in so far as the Claimant made any calculation as to amount, that calculation related to the balance between deterring breach and enforcing the notice period on the one hand and deterring recruitment on the other. In short, the sum stipulated for was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss but an “in terrorem” sum to deter breach and as such is a penalty.''

I contend that the figure of £85 is a penalty clause in terrorem to deter breach. Neither can it be commercially justified.

POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that: ''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, 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 Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bank of 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. No standing/authority to pursue charges in the courts - Highview are a mere agent with negative responsibility for customers on this landlord’s private land.
This Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Highview must have assignment of rights from the landowner 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 contend that they merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. As a commercial site agent acting under an agency agreement 'on behalf of' the named principal (the landowner), Highview has negative responsibility and no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I put Highview to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract , which - to demonstrate standing and authority - must specifically state that Highview can make contracts with drivers themselves and that they have full authority to pursue charges in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient because it will not show which restrictions are to be enforced, what the times/dates/details of enforcement are, how much the charges are for various contraventions, etc. How will I know that the landholder contract allows Highview to charge £100 for this particular contravention if the contract is not produced? Showing a piece of paper signed by someone who has never seen the actual contract, saying merely that Highview can put up signs and 'issue parking charges' would not prove that this charge is covered within the contract nor will it show any standing of this site agent.

3. Failure to invoke Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA).
The Operator purports in its PCN to apply the POFA for this alleged parking event. In order for them to pursue Keeper Liability under the POFA, Highview must have met the strict conditions in the Act. However, Highview has failed to fulfil the requirements of the “Notice to Keeper” (‘NtK’) as per para. 9 Sch 4 of the Act which reads in part:

“(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice must—
(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (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;
(h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(4) The notice must be given by:
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”

Highview has failed to comply with these requirements due to the following reasons:
• In their NtK they have failed to “inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges”; it only states that payment was not received, however it does not state that the driver (rather than the Registered Keeper) is required to pay the charge. Thus the Operator has failed to comply with para.9(2)(b) Sch.4 of the POFA;
• They have failed to inform me as the Registered Keeper that the creditor “does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver”. Thus the Operator has failed to comply with para.9(2)(e) Sch.4 of the POFA;
• They have failed to warn me that, if the charge is not paid in full within 28 days, and 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 the Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid. Thus the Operator has failed to comply with para.9(2)(f) Sch.4 of the POFA;
• They have failed to identify the creditor in any way shape or form. Thus the Operator has failed to comply with para.9(2)(h) Sch.4 of the POFA;
• They have failed to send their NtK to the Registered Keeper within the time limit stipulated; it was actually received later than day 15. Thus, Highview has failed to comply with para.9(4)(b) Sch.4 of the POFA.
The POFA cannot apply to this charge, so Highview cannot invoke keeper liability. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4. Unclear and Non-compliant signage which created no contract with the driver, who did not see any signs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The entrance sign is difficult for a driver to see from inside the car.It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In any case, unless signs are seen and understood before parking, they are not imported into any contract. And in a car park, where the Operator does not own the land and is not the principal on the signs (the named principal being the only party capable of offering the spaces and other amenities in the facility), there is no possibility of a contract, since no consideration can flow between a driver and a site agent. No money/offer/promise/permit or any other tangible nor implied nor executory consideration was capable of being exchanged in this case.

I believe the driver, having entered the car park and subsequently parked the vehicle s unlikely to have noticed any other signs by Highview because their sign is not so prominent that it 'must' have been seen in the dark. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed.
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). Lord Denning continued: '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.'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
5. ANPR records are unreliable and not proof of one parking event.
The charge is founded entirely on two photos of the vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times. I put Highview to strict proof that their ANPR system is not fundamentally flawed because of known issues such as missing checks and maintenance of the timer/cameras and the possibility of two visits being recorded as one. The Operator's proof must relate to checks and information relating to my case/my vehicle, not vague statements about any maintenance checks carried out at other times.

The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue:
britishparking.co.uk/ How-does-ANPR-work[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. Highview show no parking photographs so they cannot say for certain that the car was not involved in non-parking related activity - e.g. queuing, nor can they show the car did not leave the site and return. This could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for this time. So I require Highview to rebut these assertions.

Even if Highview are able to prove the parking duration, I agree with the BPA that this ANPR technology has issues associated with its use. These also include (but are not limited to) synchronisation errors, buffering, faults with the timer, faults with one or other of the cameras, faults with the wireless signals and differences between the settings of the in/out clocks. The operator appears to use WIFI with an inherent delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever accurate to the minute. User manuals warn that no ANPR system is 100% accurate, therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is unreliable.

In addition, the BPA code of practice contains the following in paragraph 21:
''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''
Highview fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. They place signs far too high to see on arrival and these are not lit, so 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'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Yay, 3rd time lucky, nice one based on a recent one I just wrote including the Brookfield v Van Boekel case just to give POPLA something different (and relevant) to read!

So my only thoughts to make this more suited to this car park is to remove this bit near the start, as it talks about a tariff and I assume this was a free car park in fact:

'If Highview are alleging that an overstay gives rise to a small tariff then that tariff alone plus a fixed £2.50 to obtain keeper's data from the DVLA would be the only reasonable sum that an Operator can potentially claim as a typical sum of the heads of cost that actually arise in all cases. And that would only be possible if the driver has been fully informed of that sum, on very clear notices, in advance of parking. This was not the case.

And this bit I would change to make a bit more sense for £85:

My proposition is that £85 was chosen mainly because it happens to be just £15 below the figure the BPA feel is a 'tolerable' amount to impose on motorists,

And also have you checked your Notice to Keeper to see that all the same flaws do exist with your NTK ? Such as this, is it true?

'They have failed to send their NtK to the Registered Keeper within the time limit stipulated; it was actually received later than day 15.'?

Apart from that, submit it online to POPLA once you've made any changes and tick 3 out of 4 appeal boxes. Job done.

notparked

thanks Coupon-mad
it is a pay car park :-(
I will include ' just £15 below'

I just checked the reminder ntk, as the first one was ignored, I can't say what actual date first ntk was sent but the reminder claims that the date it was sent was EXACTLY 14 days after the pcn recorded parking date.
Also as the driver should I remove all reference to Keeper Liability?


thanks again

Coupon-mad

Oh I forgot yours was a case where the driver has already been outed. OK so no point in anything about the POFA or keeper liability or even anything about the NTK at all.

Didn't realise Highview ever frequented/infested P&D car parks - so leave that tariff bit in then! I like to refresh POPLA appeal wording every so often and you are the first one to use that exact GPEOL point #1 with the Brookfield v Van Boekel case so it makes a nice change to see it here. Highview won't have a clue - especially with the Lead Adjudicator Mr Greenslade's words there too.

notparked

thanks to all for advice and input especially Coupon-mad.
Appeal has been submitted.

notparked

is it usual for appeal packs to contain :-

signage photos
letter of authority from landowner
list of payment transactions with dates and times
breakdown of costs to justify the charge which includes the POPLA appeal costs of nearly £70 ?

Redx

notparked wrote: »

is it usual for appeal packs to contain :-

signage photos
letter of authority from landowner
list of payment transactions with dates and times
breakdown of costs to justify the charge which includes the POPLA appeal costs of nearly £70 ?

its the sort of thing you would expect, yes