We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
POPLA appeal draft
MissMix
Posts: 24 Forumite
Ok, been through several examples, my dilemma is do I need the Equality section? Basically blue Badge wasn't seen on motorbility car, carers with car at time of incident & the RK owns it on behalf of child who was in car at time (Parent has court of protection etc.)
Or am I best to leave it out & just stick to the other points??
got the POPLa code, got a few more days left
Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds:
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
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.
The car park is provided “free” to all genuine customers. The car was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident.
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.
POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing Excels latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - that:
''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, 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 Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bank of 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)EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND BREACH OF UTCCR 1999
For the avoidance of doubt, the registered keeper of this vehicle has 'Protected Characteristics' under the Equality Act and has a legal right to use any 'reasonable adjustment' provided by any landholder/client/operator when visiting a customer-facing environment, including car parks.
Where there is a current disabled tax disc then it is an indicator that the car is used by someone whose restricted mobility qualifies for higher rate disability benefit. In this case the presence of the tax disc, the sight of a disabled person, and the sight of a vehicle clearly modified to be able to carry a wheelchair-bound occupant, would also have caused UKCPS to know about the disability.
Here is the law and the signage terms are affected by it:
EQUALITY ACT 2010
142 Unenforceable terms
(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144 Contracting out
(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.
This is not a case of mitigating circumstances, this is primary disability law which takes precedence and which grants unequivocal rights which cannot be removed, nor restricted to certain groups, nor unilaterally changed or charged for on a whim for UKCPS to profit.
Any term that UKPCS may have on your signs to the effect 'Blue Badges only' is wholly unreasonable and therefore null and void, if the effect is to deny a disabled person their statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty.
EQUALITY ACT 2010
29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a) a person requiring the service, or
(b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.
(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
As a company, UKPCS has specifically breached their legal duties (and the on-site operative has breached his individual duties) under the 'EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers' which has been law since 2011. 'Service Provider' is a term loosely associated with UKPCS. In the Excel v Greenwood, Case Number 3QT60496 (4/10/2013) which was about a forgotten Blue Badge, the Judge found that the Excel should have made reasonable adjustments once they knew about the disability.
3) Inadequate of signage - no contract with driver
Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, I believe that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand.
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''.
4) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
UKCPS 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 UKCPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). UKCPS 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 UKCPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
I require UKCPS 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.
5) Non compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper fails to state the period of parking, only the time of the issue of the alleged notice, and also fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available.
In addition, the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4:
Schedule 4 para8(1): 'A notice which is to be relied on as a {NTK is given} if the following requirements are met. (2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available'
The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.
6) 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 rely on unlit signs 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 it does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
7) Failed to comply with initial request for a popla code
UKCPS was contacted following the Notice to Keeper and clearly informed that no further correspondence would be entered into with their company and required a POPLA verification code to appeal independently. UKCPS ignored this requirement. They therefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice so I had to complain to the BPA to sort that out before I could appeal to you.
Yours
Or am I best to leave it out & just stick to the other points??
got the POPLa code, got a few more days left
Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds:
1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
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.
The car park is provided “free” to all genuine customers. The car was parked in such a way as to cause absolutely no damage or obstruction and therefore no loss arose from this incident.
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.
POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing Excels latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA - that:
''I am not minded to accept that the charge in this case is commercially justified. In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, including those presented here by the Operator, 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 Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bank of 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)EQUALITY ACT 2010 AND BREACH OF UTCCR 1999
For the avoidance of doubt, the registered keeper of this vehicle has 'Protected Characteristics' under the Equality Act and has a legal right to use any 'reasonable adjustment' provided by any landholder/client/operator when visiting a customer-facing environment, including car parks.
Where there is a current disabled tax disc then it is an indicator that the car is used by someone whose restricted mobility qualifies for higher rate disability benefit. In this case the presence of the tax disc, the sight of a disabled person, and the sight of a vehicle clearly modified to be able to carry a wheelchair-bound occupant, would also have caused UKCPS to know about the disability.
Here is the law and the signage terms are affected by it:
EQUALITY ACT 2010
142 Unenforceable terms
(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable against a person in so far as it constitutes, promotes or provides for treatment of that or another person that is of a description prohibited by this Act.
144 Contracting out
(1) A term of a contract is unenforceable by a person in whose favour it would operate in so far as it purports to exclude or limit a provision of or made under this Act.
This is not a case of mitigating circumstances, this is primary disability law which takes precedence and which grants unequivocal rights which cannot be removed, nor restricted to certain groups, nor unilaterally changed or charged for on a whim for UKCPS to profit.
Any term that UKPCS may have on your signs to the effect 'Blue Badges only' is wholly unreasonable and therefore null and void, if the effect is to deny a disabled person their statutory right to use a reasonable adjustment without penalty.
EQUALITY ACT 2010
29 Provision of services
(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass—
(a) a person requiring the service, or
(b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.
(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.
(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)—
(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
As a company, UKPCS has specifically breached their legal duties (and the on-site operative has breached his individual duties) under the 'EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers' which has been law since 2011. 'Service Provider' is a term loosely associated with UKPCS. In the Excel v Greenwood, Case Number 3QT60496 (4/10/2013) which was about a forgotten Blue Badge, the Judge found that the Excel should have made reasonable adjustments once they knew about the disability.
3) Inadequate of signage - no contract with driver
Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, I believe that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand.
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''.
4) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
UKCPS 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 UKCPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). UKCPS 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 UKCPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
I require UKCPS 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.
5) Non compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper fails to state the period of parking, only the time of the issue of the alleged notice, and also fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available.
In addition, the wording makes this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4:
Schedule 4 para8(1): 'A notice which is to be relied on as a {NTK is given} if the following requirements are met. (2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available'
The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.
6) 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 rely on unlit signs 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 it does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
7) Failed to comply with initial request for a popla code
UKCPS was contacted following the Notice to Keeper and clearly informed that no further correspondence would be entered into with their company and required a POPLA verification code to appeal independently. UKCPS ignored this requirement. They therefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice so I had to complain to the BPA to sort that out before I could appeal to you.
Yours
don't spend more than we need to :cool:
truly-savvy.blogspot.com
truly-savvy.blogspot.com
0
Comments
-
POPLA don't take the EA into account, which is quite disgraceful. Leave it in though - it will act as a drip drip to them that the EA is being breached by these businesses.
Appeal looks fine to me, though there are others here who excel at the disability issues.
Hope you've made a complaint to the landowner and the stores about the actions of their PPC agents.0 -
ezerscrooge wrote: »POPLA don't take the EA into account, which is quite disgraceful. Leave it in though - it will act as a drip drip to them that the EA is being breached by these businesses.
Appeal looks fine to me, though there are others here who excel at the disability issues.
Hope you've made a complaint to the landowner and the stores about the actions of their PPC agents.
Thanks for your input - that was my hunch re: the EA
don't spend more than we need to :cool:
truly-savvy.blogspot.com0 -
We live in hope though. It is a disgrace that the law does not seem to be an issue at POPLA. The law out trumps any made up PPC conditions, yet is consistently ignored. But do keep it in. I would even be tempted to make it point 1 and bump no GPEOL to point 2. Make them read it if nothing else.
What we really need is to have several POPLA appeals go in on EA2010 alone to force their hand. But this is a risky strategy and so not for the faint hearted.Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0 -
Thanks Dee140157
Hopefully its enough as it is - unless anyone else has any suggestions?
just want it done with so family concerned can stop worrying I may get it wrong for them!don't spend more than we need to :cool:
truly-savvy.blogspot.com0 -
Leave the EA bit in, as POPLA need to have it shoved in their faces. You will win on 'no GPEOL' anyway, and you have not got it wrong at all, that's a great draft!
This bit doesn't need the word 'of':
3) Inadequate of signage - no contract with driver
and just to check - was it dark when the driver parked? If not then you can't use stuff about the BPA CoP rules about signs being readable in the dark as it's not relevant.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Leave the EA bit in a POPLA need to have it shoved in their faces. You will win on 'no GPEOL' anyway, and you have not got it wrong at all, that's a great draft!
This bit doesn't need the word 'of':
3) Inadequate of signage - no contract with driver
and just to check - was it dark when the driver parked? If not then you can't use stuff about the BPA CoP rules about signs being readable in the dark as it's not relevant.
Thanks for proof reading for me, funnily enough I drove there today to have a good look at the signs for myself - actually says 'contractual agreement' 1st one I've seen with that wording!
so yes I'm leaving that section out altogether.don't spend more than we need to :cool:
truly-savvy.blogspot.com0 -
Leaving what section out altogether? Surely not the signage paragraphs?
Just because a firm has 'contractual agreement' on the signs does NOT make it consideration. Lots of them use those two words without having a clue. Nobody should be doing a POPLA appeal leaving out 'unclear signage forming no contract with driver'! Eeeek!
Was it dark though? We always ask this, as people just copy and don't seem to read the fact they've got a chunk of text talking about 'unlit signs in the dark'! Like you have...DON'T remove the entire paragraph of course. Look here's a poster who did the same then put it right further down the thread, with a good section of paragraphs all about dodgy signs:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66571280#Comment_66571280
HTHPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Yes coupon mad you're right about the section refering to it being dark etc not being appropriate, thats why I had to see it for myself as I was not there at incident. There is a sign as you drive into the car park, more signs near the actual bays, it is legible so there's lots that I shouldn't use.........
So here's my redraft on the signage section
Inadequate signage - no contract with driver
There is categorically no contract between the driver and UKCPS. The sign at the entrance to the car park merely refers the driver to “please refer to the full terms and conditions located around the car park”. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms.
Nothing about this operator's inflated ‘parking charges’ was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.
Is this enough detail?don't spend more than we need to :cool:
truly-savvy.blogspot.com0 -
Yes that's fine. Look this is what a Judge thinks of their signs!
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/ukcps-claim-dismissed-judge-rules.html
It's not just about 'having signs up'. The words can be argued to be confusing or misleading or the sign in general, is often far too wordy to be read from a car.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Back again, just been rechecking everything & pondering over the NTK section....... I actually think this example is more accurate of this appeal & want to use it. Final feedback greatly appreciated
AngryYorkshireman wrote: »Fair point Redx. I'll try take it on board
I have read through the BPA CoP and POFA 2012 and have found the following;- 'The notice must identify the creditor'
- 'The creditor means a person who is for the time being entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle'
'This contractual agreement is made with UKCPS'So it would seem that the car park is managed by UKCPS, they are the creditors and they are acting for themselves as a private parking company. Please confirm or refute this for me if possible.
The NtK states;'Payments must be made to UKCPS'Does that constitute identifying the creditor?
Want to adapt this one for appeal as recently used by Balders974 ......
No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Highview Parking Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Highview Parking Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not. Therefore in failing to identify the creditor Highview parking have failed to establish keeper liability with regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.don't spend more than we need to :cool:
truly-savvy.blogspot.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards