Peel Centre, Stockport

Redx

tna wrote: »

yeh sorry about that. I guess I got worried by their statement:


If you have not already done so, please forward the following information as a matter of urgency, as we are unable to process your appeal/challenge without it:


I guess that made me think that the ball was in my court and that I had to do something about it...

which is one reason why I think their auto-response breaks the BPA newsletter

they dont need the name OR address of the motorist as they have written to the RK with a PCN number

you are appealing the PCN NUMBER so thats all they need to process it , they already have the VRN, the RK and the RK address and the motorist may or may not be the RK so they have no right to ask for it, same as VCS their sister company dont either

as for the 35 days to make a decision, that was always the case as soon as the auto-response came back

seems to me the BPA aos took no notice of the actual complaint

so the auto-response is midleading

all it should say is thank you for your appeal which will be processed within 35 days

and that is it , no wordy response or phishing for info

Bender000

being a newbie this 35 days thing wasn't clear to me. yes, I probably have read it somewhere on these forums, but the long winded email from EP along with their bold faced font certainly achieved what it was meant to.


especially this line:


Please be advised that Excel Parking Services Ltd cannot accept any responsibility for any increase in the NOTICE CHARGE should YOU fail to provide us with the requested information within 7 (SEVEN) days from the date of this email.

Coupon-mad

It's still an auto response like any other (why read an auto response I always think, when people post about this!). It's not even a parking ticket thing it's a general situation with any email you might send to any firm - if you got an auto response from a Bank or an Insurance firm with some standard t&cs and provisos, you wouldn't pore over the standard template words as if they meant something for a particular case. You'd think 'oh good they got it' and wait for the proper reply.

Bender000

Quick update, heres the reply I got from the DVLA:


Thank you for your correspondence concerning DVLA’s Keeper at Date of Event electronic enquiry system.

I will need to do some investigations into your complaint and will supply you with a full response, shortly.

Bender000

UPDATE: Just had a long winded letter from Excel parking - screenshots below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/arrfcg8t6exgmty/1.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n9igl0q8uofyq2e/2.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrucxd1w92dl41s/3.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygzwh4ckly4pjxr/4.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/971rkni9o9r145u/5.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v8lbjhfa6f2yv5y/6.jpg?dl=0

There are loads of ExcelParking Popla templates knocking around on these forums. Am I right in thinking that the most up-to-date one (and the one for me to use) is this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64393064#Comment_64393064


thanks!

Redx

their drivel doesnt really matter here, and yes that is the latest EXAMPLE to use (its not a template, but its the latest example that can be used to compose your own appeal to popla)

Bender000

ok thanks. will post reply here.

Bender000

For completeness of this thread, heres my appeal to POPLA, its pretty much the same as https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64393064#Comment_64393064 but without the Nandos stuff. Im not quite sure if the wording reads correctly after ive removed the Nandos stuff. (Red sentence below).

Do let me know if theres anything else i need to add/remove etx.

Thanks

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd on DD/MM/YYYY. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned.

The grounds for my appeal are as follows :

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice section 19. Excel Parking Services Ltd (Excel) must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a GPEOL calculation. Excel cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a likely loss resulting from all breaches of the alleged parking contract. Also, if Excel include in their calculation any staff costs or time spent dealing with POPLA appeals or debt collection this must only be calculated on a very minimal pro-rata basis, since only a very small percentage of cases ever go to POPLA or to debt collection stage. The Operator cannot truthfully state that 'hours' are spent by various staff members in a team, on each and every PCN, because in the vast majority of cases the automated process (camera takes photos>PCN triggered automatically, most cases not even appealed) clearly involves very little back-office intervention. If only 2% of cases proceed to POPLA then only 2% of the costs of POPLA appeals could be factored into a genuine pre-estimate of loss relating to all PCNs. I contend that the figure of £100 is in fact a penalty and cannot therefore be a genuine pre-estimate of loss because Excel cannot justify £100 for each and every PCN that they say flows directly from a typical parking event in breach.

In any case I believe Excel are paid by the Peel centre an annual sum to cover the signs, ticketing and ANPR cameras, etc. Therefore, this payment income must be balanced within the GPEOL breakdown Excel supply otherwise it would be double accounting for the same expenses. The motorist is not responsible for Excel's costs already covered by the Peel Centre remuneration. The more Excel re-write the GPEOL calculation (various numbered versions which must nearly have reached double figures by now) the further away they must get from the calculation being viewed as a genuine pre-estimate. Nor can they argue long after the event of deciding these charges years ago, that suddenly the £100 is not a GPEOL after all, it is instead a 'commercially justified penalty' (jumping on the ParkingEye v Beavis bandwagon).

POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing a loss statement re-written again recently for Excel and sister company VCS - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - 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.''

If Excel have in 2014 changed their 'GPEOL calculations' from the version presented to the POPLA Assessor in the multiple times the notorious Peel Centre has cropped up at POPLA, then I contend that the calculation must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. A re-written calculation after the charges were set at this site, would be a 'post-estimate' after the event, showing figures conveniently calculated to match the charge. Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report prepared by the lead assessor, Mr Greenslade, he stated this sort of calculation is not acceptable: “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."

2) No standing or assignment of rights to enforce this charge in the courts

Excel have no proprietary interest in the land concerned and have not responded to a request for a copy of the contract with the landowner in which authority to pursue outstanding parking charges is granted, as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 7. In particular, the issue of the requirement set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f) : “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drives charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.

I require the unredacted landowner contract including any payments made between the parties, names & dates & details of all terms included. I say Excel are merely an employed site agent and this is nothing more than a commercial agreement between the two parties. There is nothing that could enable Excel to impact upon visiting drivers in their own right for their own profit, because they are agents acting on behalf of a named principal. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a mere “witness statement” since a mere letter would fail to show any payments made between the parties, and would omit contraventions and restrictions and dates & details of all terms in the actual contract.

3) ANPR - Inaccuracy and Non-compliance, including lack of ANPR data usage signs

I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos 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.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 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.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with records and photos.

4) Unfair terms

The terms that the Operator is alleging create a contract, were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance - to my potential detriment. Therefore, this charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

Further, the charge contravenes The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 :
Schedule 2 : Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair”
1(e) “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.”
5(1) ''A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999':
Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2:
5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.
19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'

I contend the above describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden'. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is in fact a disguised penalty, issued by a third party agent which is not the landowner and has no assignment of title. Such a charge would normally be restricted to the landowner themselves claiming for any damages or loss - [STRIKE]which was nothing as the driver was in Nandos which has free parking[/STRIKE], if the driver had only been informed of that by clearer and transparent signage in the various areas of this car park. The charge of £100 imposed by Excel constitutes an unfair term as it is disproportionate with respect to the alleged infringement.

yours,


The registered keeper's name

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine except I couldn't see if you'd told POPLA that it's your understanding that Excel are actually paid £30K per year by the Peel Centre for this car park (which would cover much of the expense they might try to clobber a motorist to cover!):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/excel-parking-pay-for-failure-to.html

''...the contract revealed that Excel were paid £30,000 a year by Peel Holdings to run the Peel Centre car park, which included parking services and the ANPR systems.''

So you could add something about that in the point about seeing the contract and/or where you talk about their GPEOL calculations.

Bender000

OK, have added (blue text below):

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd on DD/MM/YYYY. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned.

The grounds for my appeal are as follows :

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice section 19. Excel Parking Services Ltd (Excel) must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a GPEOL calculation. Excel cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a likely loss resulting from all breaches of the alleged parking contract. Also, if Excel include in their calculation any staff costs or time spent dealing with POPLA appeals or debt collection this must only be calculated on a very minimal pro-rata basis, since only a very small percentage of cases ever go to POPLA or to debt collection stage. The Operator cannot truthfully state that 'hours' are spent by various staff members in a team, on each and every PCN, because in the vast majority of cases the automated process (camera takes photos>PCN triggered automatically, most cases not even appealed) clearly involves very little back-office intervention. If only 2% of cases proceed to POPLA then only 2% of the costs of POPLA appeals could be factored into a genuine pre-estimate of loss relating to all PCNs. I contend that the figure of £100 is in fact a penalty and cannot therefore be a genuine pre-estimate of loss because Excel cannot justify £100 for each and every PCN that they say flows directly from a typical parking event in breach.

In any case I believe Excel are paid by the Peel centre an annual sum to cover the signs, ticketing and ANPR cameras, etc. Therefore, this payment income must be balanced within the GPEOL breakdown Excel supply otherwise it would be double accounting for the same expenses. The motorist is not responsible for Excel's costs already covered by the Peel Centre remuneration. The more Excel re-write the GPEOL calculation (various numbered versions which must nearly have reached double figures by now) the further away they must get from the calculation being viewed as a genuine pre-estimate. Nor can they argue long after the event of deciding these charges years ago, that suddenly the £100 is not a GPEOL after all, it is instead a 'commercially justified penalty' (jumping on the ParkingEye v Beavis bandwagon).

POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing a loss statement re-written again recently for Excel and sister company VCS - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - 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.''

If Excel have in 2014 changed their 'GPEOL calculations' from the version presented to the POPLA Assessor in the multiple times the notorious Peel Centre has cropped up at POPLA, then I contend that the calculation must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. A re-written calculation after the charges were set at this site, would be a 'post-estimate' after the event, showing figures conveniently calculated to match the charge. Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report prepared by the lead assessor, Mr Greenslade, he stated this sort of calculation is not acceptable: “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."

Furthermore, it has recently come to light that Excel Parking are actually paid £30,000 per year by Peel Holdings to run the Peel Centre car park, which includes parking services and the ANPR systems.

2) No standing or assignment of rights to enforce this charge in the courts

Excel have no proprietary interest in the land concerned and have not responded to a request for a copy of the contract with the landowner in which authority to pursue outstanding parking charges is granted, as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 7. In particular, the issue of the requirement set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f) : “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drives charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.

I require the unredacted landowner contract including any payments made between the parties, names & dates & details of all terms included. I say Excel are merely an employed site agent and this is nothing more than a commercial agreement between the two parties. There is nothing that could enable Excel to impact upon visiting drivers in their own right for their own profit, because they are agents acting on behalf of a named principal. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a mere “witness statement” since a mere letter would fail to show any payments made between the parties, and would omit contraventions and restrictions and dates & details of all terms in the actual contract.

3) ANPR - Inaccuracy and Non-compliance, including lack of ANPR data usage signs

I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos 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.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 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.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with records and photos.

4) Unfair terms

The terms that the Operator is alleging create a contract, were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance - to my potential detriment. Therefore, this charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

Further, the charge contravenes The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 :
Schedule 2 : Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair”
1(e) “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.”
5(1) ''A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999':
Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2:
5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.
19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'

I contend the above describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden'. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is in fact a disguised penalty, issued by a third party agent which is not the landowner and has no assignment of title. Such a charge would normally be restricted to the landowner themselves claiming for any damages or loss - which was nothing as the driver was in Nandos which has free parking, if the driver had only been informed of that by clearer and transparent signage in the various areas of this car park. The charge of £100 imposed by Excel constitutes an unfair term as it is disproportionate with respect to the alleged infringement.

yours,


The registered keeper's name