Car Parking Partnership

The_Deep

Have you got your union/staff association on board.

Do not pay it, they have suffered no loss, therefore their demand is a penalty.

Redx

you cannot upload anything here

you put the redacted images on tinypic or photobucket and link the url in your reply

nurse-money

I've not spoken to my union but I'll see what they think too.

I'm working on a mobile device so will do this via my laptop later

Thanks for your replies

nurse-money

Here is the link to the http://tinypic.com/r/axl5aw/8 the refusal letter from POPLA,

what do people think?

TheFlamingRed

At a glance, it appears the assessor has completey ignored your section 3 of your appeal to them. As such, it seems feasible that you should complain to the head of POPLA that some of your appeal points have been ignored and that the case should be reassessed.

nurse-money

In that case I will commence writing a letter of dissatisfaction with the assessors response by not addressing all of the evidence I presented. I'll address this to the Lead Adjudicator I presume? Any idea who this is?

Redx

the forum search is your friend

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5017196

rreeve used as the search word

I also think the words Henry Greenslade may help your search on here for the right words and contacts at popla

you are not the first to complain

nurse-money

Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: POPLA xxxxx

Without prejudice

Civil Parking Notice (CPN): CPxxxxxx
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 appealed to POPLA and the case was heard by Christopher Monk but unfortunately he rejected my case however I do not believe he has fully understood the appeal and has made a mistake. I appreciate mistakes happen and your assessors can not always get it right first time. I would like the lead adjudicator look at this case and specifically refer to point 3 the inappropriate parking charge.

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 xxxxxx, I have a staff permit to park and therefore no loss will have been occurred by the CPP.

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.''


I request POPLA relook at this case as it seems rather unusual that you have decided to reject my claim. I have a valid permit to park in the car park you will note this in the CPP evidence pack they have included this. How can they issue a ‘charge’ if they can be no pre estimated loss of earnings purely based on the fact that I have a valid parking permit to park in the car park. This is a complete breech of the BPA guidelines and something I will complain to the BPA about should you not accept my appeal.

I look forward to your response.

nurse-money

That is the draft of the letter I will send to Henry Greenslade - what do you think?

Coupon-mad

Are you certain your entire appeal with the points about no loss was fully copied & pasted into the POPLA page? This really does read ONLY about signage. The POPLA Assessor has not seen more - if you are certain all of your appeal was submitted then certainly complain to Mr Reeve and Mr Greenslade. I hope you didn't print the appeal out and post it without marking every page with the 10 digit code & your name in a header or footer (of course) and stapling the pages firmly together...someone on here once lost a POPLA appeal because they just folded their two page appeal into an envelope and of course, page 2 (not being attached and not having the ref or anything at the top) was lost by POPLA.

So did you post the POPLA appeal or use the online submission page?

Either way, remove 'without prejudice' as it means nothing at all in this circumstance and works against you as it shows you as using phrases that aren't legally applicable. Also you need to get to the point immediately or it reads like a POPLA appeal sent to the wrong person. Head it up on the email, 'Formal complaint about my appeal not being considered - POPLA ref xxxxxxxxxx' and immediately, your first words, should be 'This is a formal complaint because it is clear POPLA has failed to provide the Assessor with my whole appeal which was based on much more than just signage. I included the fact the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss... {don't repeat the point in full otherwise it reads like a POPLA appeal rather than a complaint}. Then say that you require a review as to what happened to your other points of appeal and think that the case needs to be re-heard.

By the way, POPLA are on holiday for 10 days or so, therefore you won't get a response until Jan.

At least it's only CPP, who are not litigious at all - the most they are likely to do is send a letter to rattle you.