Advice on expired POPLA code

olie3146

Hi, firstly I have read and re-read through all the stick threads but I cant seem to find the advice I need.

Long story short, received 2 PPC's from New Generation Parking, sent out 2 appeal letters straight away, weeks later I receive my rejection letters, with POPLA code.

I received these letters on the 21st August (they were dated 19th August) I've used the POPLA code checker and it says the code was generated on 3rd August with a deadline of the 31st August, effectively giving me only 10 days to appeal, unfortunately I have been away and haven't been able to deal with it straight away, but thought I was okay as I had 28 days to appeal.

On the POPLA code checker it says :
"Grounds for complaint
This code was generated 16 day(s) before the date of your appeal rejection letter. This means that you have not been given the full 28 days to appeal that you are entitled to under the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. Please consider making a complaint."

Who exactly do I complain to? I presume it's New Generation Parking? or is it the BPA? can anyone help, or am I now stuffed and better off paying 2x£100?

Thank you in advance for any help.

Guys_Dad

You go to POPLA and demand a POPLA code from them after explaining why.

You go to BPA, complaining and demanding sanction points to be awarded against the PPC and their instructions to the PPC to cancel the charges forthwith for a major breach in the BPA AOS CoP.

olie3146

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You go to POPLA and demand a POPLA code from them after explaining why.

You go to BPA, complaining and demanding sanction points to be awarded against the PPC and their instructions to the PPC to cancel the charges forthwith for a major breach in the BPA AOS CoP.

Thank you for your advice, I have now sent an e-mail to both POPLA and the BPA explaining the situation. I hope to get a reply.

I take it there is no point in me sending my POPLA appeal in as according to the sticky thread, POPLA wont even look at an appeal that is past the 28 days deadline (even though I actually only had 10 days)

Guys_Dad

olie3146 wrote: »

Thank you for your advice, I have now sent an e-mail to both POPLA and the BPA explaining the situation. I hope to get a reply.

I take it there is no point in me sending my POPLA appeal in as according to the sticky thread, POPLA wont even look at an appeal that is past the 28 days deadline (even though I actually only had 10 days)

Why not? Go for it with an explanation in the appeal referring POPLA to the complaint letter you have just sent in explaining why the code is apparently out of date. Nothing lost.

Coupon-mad

I received these letters on the 21st August (they were dated 19th August) I've used the POPLA code checker and it says the code was generated on 3rd August with a deadline of the 31st August, effectively giving me only 10 days to appeal, unfortunately I have been away and haven't been able to deal with it straight away, but thought I was okay as I had 28 days to appeal.

On the POPLA code checker it says :
"Grounds for complaint
This code was generated 16 day(s) before the date of your appeal rejection letter. This means that you have not been given the full 28 days to appeal that you are entitled to under the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. Please consider making a complaint."

I would prepare and submit a POPLA appeal anyway with the above stated clearly in the appeal box, and the full appeal attached as a PDF so it's readable.

Guys Dad beat me to it - we both say the same. Don't just wait and see, do the POPLA appeals anyway using the templates shown in the NEWBIES thread as your base.

Redx

I agree, if you dont ask, you dont get , nothing to lose and as you have complained anyway to popla and to the BPA etc there is no reason why the lead adjudicator cannot accept it

so do it anyway, nothing to lose

olie3146

Hi
I have just finished writing my appeal letter to POPLA for the 2 Charges I have received from New Generation Parking, and was hoping you would have a quick read through and see if you think it is okay.

back story : I received 2 parking charges for 2 separate days, stating the reason was for : Parked on Roadway.

I was clearly not parked on the roadway as it was a private parking complex with no fees and I was parked in the same place for a total of 3 days which clearly did not block any flow of traffic.

Please see my appeal letter below, and thank you in advance for any advice or corrections.



Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg XXXX XXX and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.
The driver entered the car park, Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car was parked well off the main route of traffic, so if the driver was blocking the flow of traffic (which is denied, it is up to NGP to show as much) there was no loss of potential income in a free car park.

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.

The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

As this charge is being based on contractual ground and not that of loss or damage I believe the charge of £100 to be punitive and that the burden of proof is on the parking company to prove that it is not.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that NGP are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

Where the vehicle was parked there were no yellow lines, no visible markings on the road stating that there is no parking allowed and no signs on adjacent walls stating this.

The entrance sign also breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit...should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads''.

3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
NGP' lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put NGP to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

4) Business Rates and VAT would apply if the charges are contractual agreements for the provision of a service
NGP run a business in this car park for revenue and profit, I notice that their signage appears to try to create a contractual agreement for 'services'. I put NGP to strict proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority Valuation Office in respect of this 'contractual parking service' business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue & Customs.



Might I also add that On the 21st of August I (the registered keeper) received my rejection letters from NGP (dated : 19th August 2014) with my POPLA Verification Codes : xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx, I checked both codes to find that they expired on the 31st August, giving me only 10 days from receipt of rejection letter to appeal.

These POPLA codes were generated on the 3rd of August, 18 days PRIOR to me receiving them. I have contacted BPA and demand sanction points to be awarded against the PPC company in question (New Generation Parking) for a major breach in the BPA AOS CoP


I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and order that this charge be cancelled.

Redx

I would edit out your name for a start, we dont need it

then if you check the wording (proof read it) there are times you used the word I instead of the driver so those need amending and maybe edit it to space it out better too ?

ie:- doesnt make sense and contradictory in 1) paragraph 1

I would also wait for other critique too , in later replies

olie3146

Redx wrote: »

I would edit out your name for a start, we dont need it

then if you check the wording (proof read it) there are times you used the word I instead of the driver so those need amending and maybe edit it to space it out better too ?

ie:- doesnt make sense and contradictory in 1) paragraph 1

I would also wait for other critique too , in later replies

Thanks have done that.

This is what I wasn't sure on, do I now say that I was the driver or do I still claim "the driver" ?

Redx

you dont tell them anything about who was driving, merely say "the driver did this, the driver didnt do that"

you are appealing as RK, not as driver, so never admit who was driving unless the car was hired/leased/company vehicle

surely you have seen a "no comment" interview on THE BILL or COPS etc on the tv

its their job as claimant to prove their case, not your job to hand it to them on a plate

also bear in mind if you are not in a bay then you are in the "roadway" , but as its all private land its largely irrelevant as its graffiti on the surface (painted tarmac usually)

ps:- just noticed your VRN in post #1 , please remove that too

I suggest you proof read what you post, then fill in the relevant bits just before popla submission only

olie3146

Redx wrote: »

you dont tell them anything about who was driving, merely say "the driver did this, the driver didnt do that"

you are appealing as RK, not as driver, so never admit who was driving unless the car was hired/leased/company vehicle

surely you have seen a "no comment" interview on THE BILL or COPS etc on the tv

its their job as claimant to prove their case, not your job to hand it to them on a plate

also bear in mind if you are not in a bay then you are in the "roadway" , but as its all private land its largely irrelevant as its graffiti on the surface (painted tarmac usually)

ps:- just noticed your VRN in post #1 , please remove that too

I suggest you proof read what you post, then fill in the relevant bits just before popla submission only

Thanks, I have re-editied my first post now, in regards to your comment about the fact that I am in the roadway if I am not in a bay do I need to edit a specific part out of my appeal?