POPLA Appeal Draft (TPS)

Di_Maggio

Hi there.
I have been browsing the forum and used a template from the newbies thread to get a POPLA appeal code for an invoiced received from Total Parking Solutions (TPS) using ANPR in a free shoppers car park on a retail park. I have drafted my appeal using a couple of threads linked to from the relevant thread. It all looks good to my untrained eye, but I would appreciate a once over from someone who knows what they're doing. There's a paragraph at the end that I'm afraid I don't understand. :huh:

I'm not sure how much I am advised to disclose on here, so please let me know what I can post up and what should remain 'private'

Many thanks.
DM

Dee140157

Don't put your name or PCN number or POPLA number. And make sure all info in appeal refers to the driver , but apart from that it should be ok.

Di_Maggio

OK. Thanks.
This is my appeal then:

#######################################

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

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Theirsign states the charge is for 'not complying with the above terms' 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 park was not even half full and 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.

2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
I see that the sign is placed high up and is unlit, so that in darkness no signs are visible and the words are unreadable. I put TPS to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash. There is no clearly visible entrance sign, and the sign is not prominent, not reflective & placed too high to be lit by headlights. A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

The 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 standing/authority from landowner
TPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put TPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). TPS 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 TPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require TPS 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.

4)ANPR records are unreliable and not proof of one parking event.
The charge is founded entirely on two photos of my vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times. I put TPS to strict proof that their ANPR system is not fundamentally flawed because of known issues such as missing checks and maintenance of the timer/cameras and the possibility of two visits being recorded as one. The Operator's proof must show checks relating to my case/my vehicle, not vague statements about any maintenance checks carried out at other times.

The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue:
[link edited out]
The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

Since I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. TPS show no parking photographs so they cannot say for certain that the car was not involved in non-parking related activity such as queuing, nor can they show the car did not leave the site and return. This could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for more than 90 minutes. This car park has limited space for manoeuvrability meaning that it can take some time to get in and out of parking bays, so I put TPS to strict proof of actual parking for over 90 minutes with no other activity.

I agree with the BPA that this ANPR technology has issues associated with its use. These also include (but are not limited to) synchronisation errors, buffering, faults with the timer, faults with one or other of the cameras, faults with the wireless signals and differences between the settings of the in/out clocks. The operator uses WIFI with an inherent delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever accurate to the minute.

In addition, the BPA CoP contains the following in paragraph 21:
''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.''
TPS fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. They place signs far too high to see on arrival and these are not lit, so there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

5) 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.

A sign of terms placed too high to read is far from 'transparent'.

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 rely on signs placed too high to read in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' 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.



#######################################



They didn't include the 'only if car is stolen' lie, so I want to edit that bit out. Unfortunately I don't understand the paragraph (in italics) so I'm not sure if it makes sense if I just remove it. :rotfl:

Dee140157

i woud stick a Beavis/commercial justification section in the no GPEOL (look in Parking Eye examples linked from post 3 of newbie thread) and then it will be good to go as far as i can see.

Di_Maggio

Thanks Dee.

I found this, which I can add in at the bottom of the GPEOL section:

The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':

"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...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 Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine 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.''

And with regards the final paragraph of my appeal above, and edit to this:

"I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act."

Di_Maggio

so, my full and final draft:

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

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Theirsign states the charge is for 'not complying with the above terms' 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 park was not even half full and 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 British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':

"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...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 Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine 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.

2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
I see that the sign is placed high up and is unlit, so that in darkness no signs are visible and the words are unreadable. I put TPS to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash. There is no clearly visible entrance sign,and the sign is not prominent, not reflective & placed too high to be lit by headlights. A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

The 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 standing/authority from landowner
TPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put TPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). TPS 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 TPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require TPS 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.

4)ANPR records are unreliable and not proof of one parking event.
The charge is founded entirely on two photos of my vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times. I put TPS to strict proof that their ANPR system is not fundamentally flawed because of known issues such as missing checks and maintenance of the timer/cameras and the possibility of two visits being recorded as one. The Operator's proof must show checks relating to my case/my vehicle, not vague statements about any maintenance checks carried out at other times.

The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is very common and is even mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue:
[link removed]
The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

Since I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. TPS show no parking photographs so they cannot say for certain that the car was not involved in non-parking related activity such as queuing, nor can they show the car did not leave the site and return. This could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for more than 90 minutes. This car park has limited space for manoeuvrability meaning that it can take some time to get in and out of parking bays, so I put TPS to strict proof of actual parking for over 90 minutes with no other activity.

I agree with the BPA that this ANPR technology has issues associated with its use. These also include (but are not limited to) synchronisation errors, buffering, faults with the timer, faults with one or other of the cameras, faults with the wireless signals and differences between the settings of the in/out clocks. The operator uses WIFI with an inherent delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever accurate to the minute.

In addition, the BPA CoP contains the following in paragraph 21:
''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.''
TPS fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. They place signs far too high to see on arrival and these are not lit, so there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

5) 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.

A sign of terms placed too high to read is far from 'transparent'.

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 rely on signs placed too high to read in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge under the circumstances described 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.

Dee140157

Quick skim read and seems ok. So send it off and enjoy your life!