Parking Ticket - Land Owner

raburgess1

To cut a long story short I received a private parking ticket for parking in a permitted area behind a row of shops. At the time of parking the shops were emptied and not in use by any business.

I have found the forum very helpful and sent a template letter to the company, they have responded claiming that they feel the fine was justified.

Since receiving the letter I set about researching the land owners who are a property development company. I contacted the company and spoke to a gentleman who has agreed that the fine is unfair and has said he will do anything to help.

Could anyone please clarify what the land owners has to do in order for a parking ticket to be cancelled? The gentleman has offered to personally contact the parking ticket issuer, would that be sufficient if I were to give him the parking ticket reference?

Redx

firstly its an invoice, not a fine

secondly, if he is the landowner then he should have a contract with the PPC, in that contract he should have allowed for a landowner to cancel any invoice on the land that he feels justified in cancelling

so he should check his contract and intervene on your behalf

if it were me, I would also get him to write you a letter and sign it stating he does not wish you to be charged with the invoice

that way the PPC would have a difficult time if it ever went to court , seeing as they would and should be acting on behalf of the landowner

I would also send in the template appeal, adding a point D) that the landowner has agreed to drop the charge

raburgess1

Redx wrote: »

I would also send in the template appeal, adding a point D) that the landowner has agreed to drop the charge

Many thanks for the information.

I have already sent the template appeal to 'Premier Park' and have received a response, are you saying that I should send them the appeal letter again with point D and the attached letter from the land owner asking to drop the invoice?

Redx

depends what the response says, and you didnt say

I would still try to get a written cancellation from the landowner and send it to the PPC, so yes, unless you have a popla code ?

raburgess1

I essentially sent the template provided in these forums and the reply I received states:

We write to acknowledge receipt of your recent letter appealing against the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to your vehicle for a breach of the advertised terms and conditions.

We have considered your comments, and after examining all the evidence relating to the issuing of this PCN, we are satisfied that on this occasion the charge was issued correctly and must advise that your appeal has been denied.

If you would like to view our photographic evidence please visit: pcnpayments website link

You now have three options:

1. Pay the charge

2. POPLA appeal

3. Debt recovery.

I am currently in the process of the land owners writing a letter and contacting Premier Park. Having looked at my POPLA code I have until about the 15th September to respond. Should I go down the avenue of making an appeal to POPLA or wait until I receive a response from the land owner with regards to their discussion with Premier Park.

Redx

so less than a week left for popla

what do you think (you wont need to phone a friend or ask the audience on this one)

Dee140157

And in case you really couldn't answer Redx' question, what do you think will be the case if the landowner gets around to cancelling the PCN on 16th September? It will make life more difficult. That's for sure.

Just get the appeal in.

raburgess1

With regards to the above parking invoice I have read through the forums and have drafted the following appeal response, I would be extremely grateful if someone would run an eye over this and provide any feedback:

POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Reg: xxxxxxx
PPC: Premier Park Ltd
PCN Ref: xxxxxxxxx
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN: xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam.
On 20th June 2014 a Penalty Charge Notice was attached to my vehicle by Premier Park Ltd requiring payment for a charge of £100 for an alleged parking contravention. I was the driver of the vehicle in question and I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'contravening terms' and the rejection letter mentions 'breach' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event. The demand for £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it exceeds the BPA’s own Code of Practice which states:
19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract...this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2. Contract with the landowner - not compliant with the BPA code of practice and/or no legal status to offer parking or enforce charges
Premier Park Ltd have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Premier Park are entitled to demand money from me as a permit-displaying driver, fully authorised to park there.

I require Premier Park Ltd. to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

3. Unclear signage - no contract with driver to pay £100 under these circumstances
As the driver I can confirm that there was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and myself which could have created any contract for me to pay £100. I relied upon the legitimate expectation that the vehicle would not be 'ticketed' when it was parked with a valid permit on the central console, because I took steps to ensure the permit was indeed visible from any angle when looking at that area through the windscreen. No contravention occurred because the loosely-worded sign says the permit must be displayed in the 'windscreen area' which is a very general sentence and does not require the permit to be attached anywhere specific nor even to be on the dashboard at all.

Therefore, the signage is not drafted in a specific, clear and transparent manner. If the Operator wished to insist that a permit must be attached to the windscreen itself or placed specifically on the dashboard, then they had ample opportunity to word their signs accordingly. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear so that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed. It is not enough to have some signs on site; in this car park the wording is woolly and unclear and so the doctrine of 'contra proferentem' applies: this alleged contract was not agreed in advance (or at all) and as such, terms must be clear otherwise the interpretation that favours the consumer must prevail.

4. Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(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." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "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".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "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.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car displaying a permit in the 'windscreen area' with full authority of the resident to park in that bay. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with the loose wording on their signs in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

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

Yours Faithfully,


DRIVER'S NAME


I plan to submit the letter via the POPLA appeal website as I am unfortunately on holiday at the moment, would this suffice.

Redx

you do know its the 17th today and you said the expiry was the 15th ?

TheFlamingRed

Redx wrote: »

you do know its the 17th today and you said the expiry was the 15th ?

We can always hope that 'about the 15th' actually means 'the 17th'... Otherwise Mr OP, you're now playing a 6 year waiting game unless you can get it canceled by the land owner. Be sure to inform them if you move home during this time or you may end up with a default judgement against you, if this form decides to try court.

Dee140157

But given that you have no time to amend appeal, it is ok. Just get it sent!