PCN in own parking bay

The_Slithy_Tove

PCNAUG14 wrote: »

The lease only says I have the right to park in my designated space as marked on a plan, there is no mention of permits, or rights to impose additional conditions.
I'll get drafting my POPLA appeal tomorrow.

And don't forget the FRO letter to the management company.

Half_way

to management company:
"Dear gullible management co..
On the <Date> one of your agents/contracters working for parking co entered my property as defined in this map/letter and placed a parking charge notice upon my vehicle for not displaying a permit.
as this is my property as defined by the copy of the plans I have no need for any permits to give myself permission to park.
pleas take formal note that I shall not be displaying any permit to park on my land and i consider your actions ( via your agents ) to be nothing short of harassment.
I am aware that some private parking companies can be quite aggressive in their methods and some will also send out court papers as a form of intimidation, and then fail to turn up at court, and as a result they not only waste the public's time but the courts as well.
As a result of the above I may have to challenge this to POPLA, unless you cancel instruct your agents to cancel the charge with immediate effect, If i do have to take this further then i will be holding you jointly liable for any costs that I incur as a result of your actions ( via your agents) and I will be invoicing our for any further time wasted.

PCNAUG14

I have drafted a POPLA response with the appeal based on no GPEOL and no right to land. This seems a little short but please can you advise if this should do the trick or whether more would help. (I'll post this below).

Also just to confirm with regard to the signage. It states "you will be liable to pay the parking charge of £100 if you fail to display a valid OPC permit in the front window for inspection purposes". Does GPEOL cover this wording as I've noticed in the forums that the wording of signs can make a difference.

Thanks.

PCNAUG14

Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:

I have received two Parking Charge Notices whilst parked in my own allocated parking bay. The parking permit which I have been given had slipped from the dashboard so was not visible in the windscreen at the time. I appealed the charge but this was rejected and the POPLA verification code of ########## was given with regard to both tickets.

I am appealing the charges on the following grounds:

1) The Charges are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
There is no loss flowing from this parking event because I was parked in my own designated space.
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.

2) My lease states I have the right to park in my designated space as marked on a plan. There is no mention of permits, or rights to impose additional conditions.
The Operator does not own the land in question and have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with a copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

I contend it is wholly unreasonable charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park in an allocated space. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described 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.

The_Deep

Personally I would concentrate on their standing, i.e. no contract, but Popla might be misguided enough to find against you, not that that would matter. It just depends on how much grief you want to cause them.

Dee140157

This is one of those where you have to ask yourself the question, do you like many people just want it to go away, or do you want to fight for a principle all the way if needs be.

If the former, then more work needs to be done on no GPEOL and you need a signage paragraph or two.

If the latter then you need to focus more on the landowner authority issue etc.

The choice has ultimately to be yours and you must not feel you have to go either way. Whichever, more work I think needs doing.

PCNAUG14

Mainly just want this to go away but not sure what to say about signage as there are plenty of signs and I've lived there for a year.....

Umkomaas

It's not about how many signs, or how long they've been there. There are so many things that PPCs can get wrong on their signage, so it's always a 'must have' in any POPLA appeal. You don't need to prove what's wrong, the PPC has to prove that everything on the signage is right.

And many have spectacularly failed in the past - as Prankster has blogged about previously.

Marktheshark

Who actually owns the land you park on ?
Is it part of your leasehold or do you just have permission to park on it.

If it is your leasehold, you can sue them.
They are operating a money making business on land you leasehold.
They owe you, not the other way around.

I certainly would not be begging to popla if this is the case I would be filing for damages for trespass.

Coupon-mad

Always, always have an 'unclear signage forming no contract with drivers' paragraph. What is it with so many newbies this month saying 'I haven't included that because there were signs up' (as if in all the other cases they think that there were no signs up)?