Paid but still had a ticket

newcruiser

I returned to my car to find a parking charge, I have a witness to prove that I paid for the ticket and displayed it on my dashboard. I appealed to the company (PPS) stating that I had bought a ticket but this has been rejected, on their photograph the ticket had slipped so that the time and date was not visible, no sticky label or adhesive was issued and I think that as it was a hot day it could have moved with the movement of the dashboard.
However the charge stated that "no valid ticket displayed"
it was clearly visible even though the times could not be seen.
Does anyone think I have a case for not paying this charge?

Quentin

Yes.


Read the sticky at the top of the forum and take it from there

bod1467

It could just as easily been the parking "attendant" rocked your car to make the ticket move.

As per above - read the NEWBIES guide.

Coupon-mad

How does it matter what happened? It's irrelevant and would 100% lose at POPLA. Why not look in the Newbies thread at the top where it tells you when to appeal which is NOT as driver to a windscreen ticket. And where in the third post it gives you 2 POPLA appeal advice links for a POPLA appeal v PPS, specifically to tell you how to win. Ignore those wordings at your peril, as one person lost v PPS at POPLA stage. Luckily they hadn't said who was driving and they were neither driver nor keeper!

That's what sticky threads are at the top for, to be read first. I reiterate you must follow the advice about PPS when you get the rejection letter, later on, when you appeal as keeper to the first letter. NOT now. No. Forget the silly 'discount' offer and DO NOT say who was driving, no 'I put my ticket on the dash' etc. Please just read the top thread and let us know when you are at POPLA stage and show us your draft appeal then which will be based upon the PPS POPLA appeal versions.

newcruiser

The parking charge and letter from PPS both states that "no valid ticket displayed", but the photograph from PPS shows the ticket although the time and date is partly obscured. Is this a valid reason to appeal to POPLA.
Another reason I think I may have is that my ticket was placed at 08.40, yet the charge was issued at 1800, I would have thought a check would have been made within that time when my ticket was probably visible. Can I make PPS prove that no other check was made in over 9 hours.

Coupon-mad

Is this a valid reason to appeal to POPLA... Can I make PPS prove that no other check was made in over 9 hours.

Well they can be worked into a strong POPLA appeal but be careful as PPS have won a couple. If you write your own you'd be risking writing who was driving/who displayed the ticket.


DO NOT APPEAL YET - DO NOT LOOK AT THE 'DISCOUNT' (LOL!).


Have a look at this winning PPS POPLA appeal below, while you patiently wait for the first letter which gives you another appeal point (the bits in red may not apply to your car park). Remember this is merely an example to put you on the right road to beat PPS at POPLA - this is not an initial appeal when the first letter arrives (that will be the template from the top thread):



Dear POPLA
Premier Parking Solutions issued a parking charge notice of £100 on their usual excuse, i.e. 'no valid ticket or permit was displayed'. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this parking event as described did not occur and I am not liable for this PCN which also exceeds the appropriate amount.
These are my appeal grounds:

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

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to pursue these charges through the courts in their own name.

3. Failure to establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act.

4. The upright signage at the entrance and around the car park created no contract with the driver to 'continuously display' parking tickets.

5. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required. PPS did not mitigate any 'loss'.

6. The contravention as described did not occur.

Here are my detailed appeal points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to pursue these charges through the courts in their own name.
I require the parking company to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.I believe they have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I contend that PPS are merely a commercial agent acting on behalf of the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing to pursue this matter. Halsbury (on Agency at 157) says the wording "on behalf of" is "conclusive when qualifying the signature to negative responsibility of the signatory as principal whether the identity of the actual principal is disclosed or not".

I will not accept the usual PPS 'witness statement' as it does not refute the points I have raised and the following issues would also be hidden:

- what the restrictions are as stated in the contract
- whether PPS are an agent acting with negative responsibility and standing
- the site boundary and scope of the operation
- what the charges are for each alleged contravention
- specific dates & details of the contract

I confirm that I will not post their contract on the internet so this Operator cannot justify withholding it. To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either.

3. Failure to establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act. (a) The notice to keeper was not properly 'given' under POFA
and (b)(HULL DOCKS ONLY) Hull Docks is not 'relevant land' as defined in POFA.
(a) The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with the POFA as it does not contain the following wording as found in paragraph 8 of schedule 4:
'‘(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’
(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available''

Regarding the final sentence quoted from 8(g), POPLA will notice that the NTK completely omits any details (even on the back) about how to appeal and the keeper's right to POPLA.

In addition, the Notice contains misleading information suggesting a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist - a breach of the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14 'Misrepresentation of authority'. In bold at the top of the Notice is the underlined word 'Important' and therein follows the first untruth:
'Failure to pay the parking charge within 14 days of receiving it, without reasonable excuse, could lead to legal proceedings being issued.'
Utterly misleading, impersonates Police wording and is patently not true.There is no 14 day deadline at all and a person does not need 'reasonable excuse' not to pay or appeal. This is compounded by another large font paragraph in bold, with another lie: 'Only payment in full will prevent us from taking further action'. Utterly misleading and patently not true that the keeper's ONLY option is to pay in full because of course they have the option to appeal, which also stops 'further action'.

PPS also tried to tell me that I was too late to appeal as keeper, pretending that keepers and drivers can only appeal from 28 days of any windscreen ticket.This is another lie as the first 28 day period simply does not apply to keepers, whose first Notice would be the first letter. I had to complain to the BPA in order to be allowed to appeal and to get a POPLA code.

The driver has never been identified; the charge has been appealed by myself and I am the registered keeper. As such the charge cannot legally be re-claimed from the keeper.The DVLA has warned that it will suspend parking operators who claim keeper liability applies when it does not.Knowing - as they must do - that their PCN is not POFA 2012 compliant at all, this operator includes another misleading underlined sentence on the back (top) of the Notice, about liability: 'Failure to supply the information {about the driver} may result in a claim being issued against you personally as the registered keeper of the vehicle'.

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

(b) This particular site fails to meet the definition of 'relevant land' under the POFA.No keeper liability applies at all, due to the ’Hull Docks Bylaws 1927’ (and/or subsequent amendments and/or updated Hull Docks bylaws).
Such land is not 'relevant land' under the definition within POFA and if the Operator contends otherwise it will not be enough for them to simply state that it 'is' relevant land.I put the Operator to strict proof to rebut my assertion.They would need to showcontemporaneous and compelling evidence from the Docks Authority, e.g. documents & maps to support a contention that they may argue that Bylaws do not apply at this car park.

In POPLA decision 6060344057 Assessor Chris Adamson found as fact on the single appeal point that there can be no keeper liability at a Port/Harbour car park site where the existence of bylaws render it not to be 'relevant land'.This case is the same.

4. The upright signage at the entrance and around the car park created no contract with the driver to 'continuously display' a parking ticket.
The Operator must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted terms to 'continuously display' a P&D ticket, even in the driver's absence after parking. My contention is that the signage does not communicate that specific contractual requirement. The wording only mentions placing a ticket on the dashboard - and the driver did comply with the signage in this regard.

In a flawed decision recently at Hull Docks (6861004046 which is known to be the subject of a complaint by the appellant) PPS convinced the Assessor by merely showing archive photos of a 'white sticker' placed on a random P&D machine (location not known within the site).Those old photos were from October/early November 2013 and there was no site map of signage and machines produced.

If this is the evidence that PPS supply in my case I would say that a sticker on a P&D machine is as vulnerable to the elements as a flimsy P&D ticket is and there is no evidence that in January, after the severe weather the UK suffered in the ensuing Winter months, that a white sticker on a machine in Hull Docks in October was even still readable in January, let alone whether it was even on the actual machine the driver used.In addition, in Council PCN appeals, London Councils Adjudicators state that Pay & Display machines are not 'signs' in their own right.Restrictions and information must be on upright signs which communicate any contractual terms & conditions of parking, whereas a Pay & Display machine merely facilitates payment.It is not a 'sign'.

5. The amount required to park on the day had been paid and tickets had been displayed on the dashboard as required. PPS did not mitigate any 'loss'.
A payment for parking was made for the time the vehicle was located in the parking bay, and the ticket was displayed on the dashboard. Adverse weather conditions at the time may have caused the ticket to slip, but equally it would have been 'easy' for their operative to have caused the issue when leaning close to the car; PPS and Valley Enforcement being well used to 'moving' cars in the not-too-distant past.
There is no reasonable justification to expect a motorist to be able to - in their absence - continually display for nine hours, a very flimsy ticket on a dashboard and yet provide no means to attach them securely at a very windy site.

It is not enough for PPS to say that these tickets are 'industry standard' when they are clearly not fit for purpose at this particular site.There has been no loss incurred and PPS made no attempt to mitigate their 'loss' by (for example) making the tickets adhesive or for the operative to check the P&D ticket sooner, because when it was left the driver contends it was fully displayed and in fact never fell out of view. The attendant could see the ticket in the car which had apparently mysteriously 'moved a bit' and yet PPS will no doubt claim they 'thought there was an initial loss'(!). PPS know full well there is no loss in a case where they can see the P&D ticket which has a code on it which tallies with that day's tickets issued from the machine. They have an attendant on site so the records are easily checked to ensure there is no 'double use' of the same coded ticket (e.g. by two cars). Such simple checks would immediately show the ticket with that code was valid for that day and would mitigate any loss in pointlessly pursuing another victim.

6. The contravention as described did not occur
It is also a fact - proved by PPS' own photos - that this contravention 'no valid ticket was displayed' did not occur. A valid ticket was displayed, so there cannot have been NO ticket. If PPS wanted to have a contravention for allegedly not being able to read the entire displayed ticket then they needed a Notice to Keeper which said 'pay and display ticket not correctly displayed' or similar clear wording in order to attempt to comply with the POFA which says a ticket has to set out the reason why the charge has arisen and state any unpaid parking fees. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours the consumer would be that this allegation as described in the document as drafted, did not happen.

This concludes my appeal.

newcruiser

Thanks for that. My car was parked in Station Approach car park in Plymouth.

newcruiser

In my appeal to pps I did say that I placed the ticket on the dashboard and that when I returned etc. But I did not admit to being the driver although it is obvious I was.

Coupon-mad

You didn't say you'd already appealed, thereby throwing away the slam-dunk winning point about the Notice to Keeper which I assume you didn't wait for. Oh dear. I suppose you 'can' say the driver has never been identified but your appeal words didn't help.

Have you got your rejection letter and POPLA code then? If so work out a draft using the parts in the above example you can use (miss out point 3 and remove anything about Hull Docks and the red bits and see what you are left with.

Can we see the signs there please? That's a new PPS car park for us to look at the signs for.

AS A NEWBIE, YOU MUST CHANGE THE 'HTTP' TO HXXP TO POST A 'LINK'.

newcruiser

Now your really confusing me, can't I just send a photograph of the sign as an attachment?

Coupon-mad

I have asked you to show us the link to the sign, but you can't post links here yet, which you would know if you'd read the forum info when you joined! You haven't got enough posts under your belt to post a working link here yet.

Show us the sign please but not a working link.