POPLA appeal letter - Excel parking

Coconut01

Hi,

Could someone please review the below appeal letter before i send it to POPLA. I've removed the bit about signage as having been back to the car park it's well signed. should i still put it in?

Thanks

---

RE: POPLA CODE- xxxxxxxx

Parking Charge Number (PCN): xxxxxxxxxxx
Vehicle Reg: xxxxxxxxxxx
Operator: Excel Parking Service Ltd


I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for parking without displaying a valid ticket. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

1. PCN neither a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract assigning rights to Excel Parking to enforce contracts with drivers
3. Charge non compliant to the BPA Code of Practice

1. Neither a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of 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.

Excel Parking notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event. 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. Excel Parking 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.

Therefore Excel Parking cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that Excel Parking charge the same lump sum for a 2 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear this charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that ''a parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists''.

Neither can the charge be 'commercially justified'. POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson 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.''

I therefore require Excel Parking to supply:
• A detailed breakdown of their genuine pre-estimate of loss based on 2 minutes between the expiry time on the permit and the issue time of the parking ticket.

2. No contract assigning rights to Excel Parking to enforce charges in the courts or to form their own contracts with drivers

I believe that Excel Parking has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, or to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Excel Parking must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by Excel Parking in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that Excel Parking merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing, nor authority, in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore require Excel Parking to supply:

• An unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Excel Parking and the landowner.

This is required so that POPLA and I can check that it allows Excel Parking to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).


3. Charge non compliant to the BPA Code of Practice

The ticket I received from Excel Parking had no reference to VAT shown on it. If it was an invoice for payment of a service contract, it must show VAT details on it, i.e., for parking services amount owed £50 + VAT at 20% = £60. Since there is no mention of VAT it must therefore be presumed to be nil or zero rated which would be the applicable rate for a fine or penalty, which of course is non compliant to the BPA Code of Practice itself which states that the use of fine or penalty may not be used. That doesn’t legitimise the use of a more convenient term though. If the amount demanded were a contractual charge then it fails the test for that based entirely upon the wording on the ticket. It MUST show the VAT details of the company in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, and it does not, therefore cannot be a breach of an alleged contractual arrangement.


With all this in mind, I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to instruct Excel Parking to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,


XXXXXXXXXXX

ezerscrooge

You must keep the signage bit in. It is up to Excel to prove it is compliant - there are lots of things that can be wrong with the signs, even though they 'look' ok.

Also, have you appealed following a Notice to Keeper?, and does the NtK mention words like 'the creditor is...' or specify what the period of parking is? If the NtK is wrong then this could be another appeal point and the following section will be needed;
____
[FONT=&quot]Notice to Keeper Not Compliant with PoFA 2012[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is on two grounds:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](a) The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at a particular time on the day in question.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](b) The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor'.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the NTK is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant NTK are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in the NTK wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In this case keeper liability has been lost due as it fails to clarify neither what the contravention is, nor who the creditor is and so it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.[/FONT]

---

But don't send it just yet, I'm sure others will come along with some more feedback.

ezerscrooge

Best to use the template here - it's bang up to date...

This is for Peel Centre - as similar case to yours I guess. Edit it to suit. You can add the above NtK bit a point 6 if the points mentioned are valid to your case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64393064#Comment_64393064

Coconut01

thanks for the quick reply, i'll put the signage bit back in, shouldn't have assumed that the signs that are there would conform to the regulations.

The PCN I received and unsuccessfully appealed doesn't mention "the creditor", and doesn't specify the time period just that the driver "parked without displaying a valid ticket / permit"

ezerscrooge

Good news for the NtK failure then. Use that template I pointed you to in my second posting (#3) and add the 6th point, that being the Non-Compliant NtK as written in my first post (#2)

That'll be a winner. But please post your revised one here before sending it to PoPLA

.

Coupon-mad

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.

Hmmmm, I would not recommend anyone including that sentence in an appeal where you haven't even told POPLA whether the driver paid and displayed! You don't want to be digging your own holes and saying 'not paying a tariff would be an obvious initial loss' when Excel have accused the driver of...not paying a tariff!!

Also if you have only appealed so far as KEEPER not driver (and not implied who parked the car when you first appealed?) then yep you can cite issues with the Notice to Keeper not complying with the POFA, as already said. But there's more to say on that front, if you are appealing as keeper. The fact is that the PCN does not 'describe the outstanding parking charges' which 'remained unpaid' by the driver, as at the DAY BEFORE the issue of the postal PCN (i.e. not the 'parking charge' which cannot possibly be described as 'remaining unpaid' the day before the silly 'invoice' was even raised)! SO the POFA says the NTK has to describe the alleged unpaid tariff (e.g. £1 or so) but it doesn't even state what that was). So it's not a complaint NTK and there is no keeper liability established under the POFA Schedule 4.

And if it's a postal PCN (no windscreen PCN) then you need the usual 'Unreliable ANPR' point of appeal as well.

ElleKay33

Hi Coupon Mad, I've been through your threads and have now got my appeal letter ready to send off to POPLA. However, I'd just like to know if I need to send anything else with it...i.e. copy of the NTK? I don't have any other supporting evidence for my claim - will this go against me? I intend to email the letter to POPLA, as specified on their website.

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

No need to show any attachments and the PPC has to show all their letters, like the PCN and/or NTK.

Coconut01

Hi,

I've changed my letter to use the template suggested above. I've added the 6th paragraph about the Notice to Keeper not complying. Do I need to add or change anything?

Thanks again

---

Dear POPLA

I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd (Excel). I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned and this is my appeal, based on six points:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable. Excel must explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a GPEOL calculation, not including their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, convoluted layers of staff checks including time on appeals that never happen in most cases, or hefty write-off costs and unsubstantiated 'overheads'. Also, if Excel include in their calculation any staff costs or time spent dealing with POPLA appeals or debt collection this must only be calculated on a very minimal pro-rata basis, since only a very small percentage of cases ever go to POPLA or to debt collection stage. The Operator cannot truthfully state that 'hours' are spent by various staff members in a team, on each and every PCN, because in the vast majority of cases the automated process (camera takes photos>PCN triggered automatically, most cases not even appealed) clearly involves very little back-office intervention. If only 2% of cases proceed to POPLA then only 2% of the costs of POPLA appeals could be factored into a genuine pre-estimate of loss relating to all PCNs. I contend that Excel cannot justify £100 for each and every PCN that they say flows directly from a typical parking event in breach. In any case I believe Excel is paid by Iceland an annual sum to cover the signs, ticketing and ANPR cameras, etc. Therefore, this payment income must be balanced within the GPEOL breakdown Excel supply otherwise it would be double accounting for the same expenses. The motorist is not responsible for Excel's costs already covered by the Iceland remuneration. The more Excel re-write the GPEOL calculation (various numbered versions which must nearly have reached double figures by now) the further away they must get from the calculation being viewed as a genuine pre-estimate. Nor can they argue long after the event of deciding these charges years ago, that suddenly the £100 is not a GPEOL after all, it is instead a 'commercially justified penalty' (jumping on the ParkingEye v Beavis bandwagon).

POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 upon seeing a loss statement re-written again recently for Excel and sister company VCS - 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 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.''

If Excel have in 2014 changed their 'GPEOL calculations' from the version presented to the POPLA Assessor previously, then I contend that the calculation must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. A re-written calculation after the charges were set at this site, would be a 'post-estimate' after the event, showing figures conveniently calculated to match the charge. Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report prepared by the lead assessor, Mr Greenslade, he stated this sort of calculation is not acceptable: “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."

2) No standing or assignment of rights to enforce this charge in the courts.
Excel have no proprietary interest in the land concerned and have not responded to a request for a copy of the contract with the landowner in which authority to pursue outstanding parking charges is granted, as required by the BPA Code of Practice, Section 7. In particular, the issue of the requirement set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f) : “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drives charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe that Excel do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.

I require the unredacted landowner contract including any payments made between the parties, names & dates & details of all terms included. I say Excel are merely an employed site agent and this is nothing more than a commercial agreement between the two parties. There is nothing that could enable Excel to impact upon visiting drivers in their own right for their own profit, because they are agents acting on behalf of a named principal. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a mere “witness statement” since a mere letter would fail to show any payments made between the parties, and would omit contraventions and restrictions and dates & details of all terms in the actual contract.

3) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed

A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms before parking. Nothing about Excel's onerous terms was sufficiently prominent. I believe 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.

BPA code 18.1 “You must use signs to make it easy...to find out what your terms and conditions are.”BPA code 18.2 states “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.”

BPA code 18.3 states “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

Any photos supplied by Excel to POPLA will no doubt show the signs present on site and in daylight or with the misleading aid of a camera with zoom or a flash - and the angle may well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require Excel to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous wider view photo evidence of these signs in context in the car park.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA CoP which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. This would include the signs being lit/reflective and repeated throughout the car park, with consistency of restrictions throughout.

4) ANPR - Inaccuracy and Non-compliance, including lack of ANPR data usage signs
I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

I also require Excel to produce evidence to show that they had conducted searches of their ANPR database to rule out multiple entries/exits, a phenomenon where the camera has missed picking up the VRN in the middle of those times shown on their photos. It would only take one missed reading of
the VRN - due to a van or a carrier bag, bird, tree branch or even a pedestrian crossing over and obscuring the camera's clear view - for this system to then ignore any other entry/exit in the meantime. ANPR records are certainly not infallible and all such systems have their flaws. Excel's evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out (first arrival, last exit) which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that day. Indeed this issue has previously been noted by POPLA assessor Matthew Shaw in a successful POPLA appeal in May 2014:

“where a registration mark is misread, or not read at all and no photo is recorded by the ANPR camera, then the system is “configured to record the duration of stay as the first and last exit”, and to ignore any isolated entry or exit in between. On that basis, the ANPR need only have missed either the vehicle’s initial exit or re-entry. Because the site was very congested at the times in question, the Appellant submits that the ANPR error is most likely to have been caused by another vehicle obscuring his registration mark. In any event, the Appellant suggested various pieces of evidence that the Operator ought to reasonably provide to prove its case. This included evidence to show that it had conduct searches of its ANPR database to rule out multiple entries/exits on the day in question. The Operator did not produce any evidence to address these issues. On balance, I find that the Operator has not discharged its burden to prove the offence by refuting the Appellant’s submissions. The appeal is allowed on this ground. “

It is therefore within the realms of possibility that the system operating on the day in question may well have fallen victim to such a phenomenon of the vehicle entering the car park and leaving on two separate occasions but only recording two of these events and as such creating the appearance of the vehicle being in the car park for a longer period than was actually the case. Or the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out to get change before returning (and of course the ANPR cameras show only the first and last visits).

The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;

<I can't post links but my letter will contain the link>

The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

a) 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.

b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Even if an Operator shows a list with 'no record' of that car registration in between the times, this would not discount the 'double visit' possibility as it is well known that car registrations are completely missed when a vehicle is followed closely by a higher vehicle, or by a temporary interruption in the camera recording. I put the Operator to strict proof to the contrary. In my view, it would take evidence in the form of continuous video footage to refute the double visit possibility. If I am wrong then they must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no more entries or exits that day by this car. Lists of VRNs 'seen' would merely support my argument that the system is flawed.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:

''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

21.1 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.

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.

21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.

21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:

• be registered with the Information Commissioner

• keep to the Data Protection Act

• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data

• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case).

This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with records and photos.

5) Unfair terms

The terms that the Operator is alleging create a contract, were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance - to my potential detriment. Therefore, this charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘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.’

Further, the charge contravenes The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 :
Schedule 2 : Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair”

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.”

5(1) ''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. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999':

Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2:

5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”

Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens

'18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.

19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'

I contend the above describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden'. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is in fact a disguised penalty, issued by a third party agent which is not the landowner and has no assignment of title. Such a charge would normally be restricted to the landowner themselves claiming for any damages or loss - which was nothing if the occupants were in either of the restaurants where there is free parking. Excel show no evidence either way, merely photos of the first arrival and last departure in moving traffic, with no indication where the car was in between. The charge of £100 imposed by Excel constitutes an unfair term as it is disproportionate with respect to the alleged infringement.

6) Notice to Keeper Not Compliant with PoFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is on two grounds:

(a) The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of parking'. It states only that the car was seen at a particular time on the day in question.

(b) The Notice to Keeper does not identify the 'creditor'.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the NTK is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant NTK are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in the NTK wording means there is no 'keeper liability'.

In this case keeper liability has been lost due as it fails to clarify neither what the contravention is, nor who the creditor is and so it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

yours,

The registered keeper's name XXXXXXXXXX

Coupon-mad

Yes that's great. Not sure it will fit in the POPLA submission appeals box so put the headings only in that box and say 'This is a synopsis - please see attached document for my full appeal' and then attach your appeal as evidence as a PDF or jpeg or word document saved to Dropbox, or whatever the system allows.

ampersand

OK darryl - was trying to sort out your prev. version - very difficult - and your ANPR point was muddled and incomplete. Much better now.

Notwithstanding - I'd lose 'For the avoidance of doubt'. it is not correctly used here.
then 'I will not accept a mere “witness statement” since [STRIKE]a mere letter .[/STRIKE]this would fail to show...' etc. Careful. You cannot pre-judge what might be in a letter excel may concoct. You could only challenge it subsequently if popla assessor failed to correctly do so.

Last bit's askew:
'In this case keeper liability has been lost [STRIKE]due.[/STRIKE]
[a] because it fails to clarify [STRIKE]neither [/STRIKE]what the alleged contravention is and -
who the creditor is, thereby failing to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.