Car Parking Partnership

nurse-money

I've carefully read through loads of the wonderful threads on this forum. Thanks everyone...

I have been issued with a 'Civil Parking Notice' from Car Parking Partnership (CPP) who operate at my employers sites. I have a permit to park but they are accusing me of parking in a restricted area. There is no bays in the car park and they think my car was blocking other drivers which it was not. It's a piece of land and people just park the best they can.

I appealed to my employer who wasn't very helpful and then eventually have ended up at the POPLA stage.

I have submitted my POPLA appeal on these reasons:

1. Lack of signage and lighting
2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
3. Inappropriate parking charge
4. No breach/trespass

I'm looking forward to POPLA giving their outcome.

My question is that there is 9 more days for both me and CPP to submit evidence. I know CPP have submitted evidence and I have now too.

When do you likely think I'll get a response from POPLA?

fisherjim

But did you include a no GPEOL statement?

Umkomaas

Have you included in your POPLA appeal a 'No GPEOL' section? This is the most potent appeal point available to you.

You have time to add this to your POPLA appeal if you've not got it built in already.

ezerscrooge

Did you you use the templates on here? If not then you need to add more information to POPLA appeal making sure you include all the points.

You must have the No GPEOL in the appeal, as Umkomaas has said, it is a very important point.

nurse-money

thanks for the replies

I have under section three included this:

3. Inappropriate parking charge

The demand for a payment of £80 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:

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.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.

I require CPP to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
As a member of staff at XXXX, I have a staff permit to park and therefore no loss will have been occurred by the CPP.

How does that sound?

nurse-money

Here is the full letter:

Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA xxxxxxx

Without prejudice

Civil Parking Notice (CPN): CPxxxxxxx
Vehicle Reg: xxxxx
Date of Issue: 08/10/2014
Company in question: The Car Parking Partnership (CPP)

On the above date, I (the keeper of the vehicle) was issued with a CPN for parking in an unauthorised or restricted area at xxxxxxx. There were no signs anywhere near the car and no signs were observed on entry to the area. The signage was extremely poor, with there most significantly not being any signs at all around where the car was parked. There is no lighting inside the car park.

I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

1. Lack of signage and lighting
2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
3. Inappropriate parking charge
4. No breach/trespass

1. Lack of signage and lighting

There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and The Car Parking Partnership (CPP). No signs were observed. There were no large BPA standard signs when the car park was first entered therefore there was no idea of any alleged contract or restrictions.

There were no BPA standard signs at all located near where the car was parked.

I require CPP to provide POPLA with evidence that its signage is compliant with BPA rules upon both entry and where the car in question was parked. There is no sign at the entrance to this car park. CPP have not provided any evidence of photographs of signage at the entrance to the car park and I require them to do so. They will struggle to do this as no sign exists.
Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, I suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material.
There is no lighting in this car park or signage at the entrance which is a breach of the BPA’s guidelines making this ticket entirely unenforceable.

2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges

The CPP parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner or alternatively working in partnership with the University. However, I doubt that CPP has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. I therefore require CPP to supply and POPLA to review:

• A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
• A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
• A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
• Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car where the car in question was parked.

Furthermore, I require that the CPP show POPLA proof that they have the right to charge and pursue motorists (including threats of debt recovery and court action).

3. Inappropriate parking charge

The demand for a payment of £80 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The BPA code of practice states:

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.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable.

I require CPP to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
As a member of staff at the xxxxx, I have a staff permit to park and therefore no loss will have been occurred by the CPP.


4. No breach/trespass

If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the CPP ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if CPP do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform CPP to cancel the CPN.

Yours faithfully,

nurse-money

Thanks everyone for your comments.... How does the letter look?

Dublindel

You seem to have it covered. Did you appeal to an address or a PO Box number

ezerscrooge

Scotching any 'commercial justification' would be helpful .. This adds onto the end of your section 3
____________

[FONT=&quot]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:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]''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”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.''[/FONT]
_________________

nurse-money

Thanks for your comments. I will add that in to section 3

I have submitted this as 'evidence' electronically to POPLA - is that not right?

Umkomaas

nurse-money wrote: »

Thanks for your comments. I will add that in to section 3

I have submitted this as 'evidence' electronically to POPLA - is that not right?

That's just fine. Presume you received a confirmation of its receipt from POPLA?