Feedback on letter to Highview Parking Letter to Popla Please

pbsimon

Hi

Any feedback on the following letter to Highview Parking would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

---

Dear POPLA,

I am writing to you regarding a rejected appeal to HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD following their claim that my car was parked on their client’s property for longer than permitted. Notwithstanding the fact that both their initial charge and their subsequent reminder arrived at a time when I was living away from my home address as my son had just been born prematurely and my partner and I were staying with him in the NeoNatal Unit of the hospital, they rejected my claim. I now fear I am liable to pay the full amount rather then their ‘generous’ reduction for early payment.

However, as I believe this charge to be erroneous and unsafe, I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:

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. There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was not even half full, so if the duration of any stay exceeded any supposed allotted time (which is denied as I am the keeper and it is up to HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD 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.

Nor is the charge 'commercially justified'. If we look at another, similar company, Excel (VCS) cite 'ParkingEye v Beavis & Wardley' it's irrelevant since Mr Beavis is taking that flawed small claim decision to the Court of Appeal, just as HHJ Moloney fully expected at the time he made his decision, which was full of caveats and full of holes and a distinct lack of case law. In addition, POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing VCS' latest effort at a loss statement - their latest attempt to get around POPLA and likely to be broadly similar to any effort made by their sister firm, Excel - 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 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.''

My case is the same and Excel contracts are nothing like HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD's contract in the Beavis case anyway, where Parking Eye paid £1000 per week for what was in effect a 'fishing licence' to catch victims and where the Operator made out they were the principal. In my case, HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD appear to be merely agents at best, with a bare contractor's licence to put up signage and 'issue tickets' and they are known to be paid by their client so they have no standing nor loss to claim in their own right anyway. Of course money changing hands will affect any calculations of so-called 'loss' and is one of several reasons why I will require the landowner contract in full (unredacted) as mentioned later.

Therefore I believe this charge to be purely punitive and would call on HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD to prove otherwise.

2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
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...”

3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner to issue tickets
HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD 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 HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD 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 HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require HIGHVIEW PARKING 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.

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 rely on a lack of signs/markings in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park. 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.

5) Inaccuracies in the ANPR cameras

As has been the case with previous claims, it is wholly possibly that the ANPR cameras used by HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD are flawed. Given the range of shops and restaurants available in this retail park, it would be very possible for a customer to visit the same car park twice in a day but HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD issued the ticket based on the 1st entry and last exit (i.e. one long stay). This could indicate a flaw in either the technology (e.g. not always recognising number plates) or the business process (e.g. HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD not checking their records correctly) and the burden of proof lies with them to prove otherwise.

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

Yours faithfully