POPLA Appeal Highview Parking

Weekends_r_2_short

I received an email from Highview refuting my PoPLA appeal. Do I need to do anything in the meantime please?

Dear Madam
Please find attached the evidence pack in the above reference which has been submitted to POPLA.
Yours faithfully,
Highview Parking Ltd

bod1467

So you go through the pack, then send a rebuttal to POPLA to highlight all the lies, mis-truths and errors in that pack.

Weekends_r_2_short

Thanks Bod1467. Do you know if there's an example I can follow. Find this very overwhelming.

bod1467

Search this forum for rebuttal.

Weekends_r_2_short

I've almost completed constructing the rebuttal based on others' successes.
One of Highview's points states that This site is also for customers only, as detailed on the prominent signage on site (See Section F). It is noted that ************** makes no claim to be a customer of the facilities on site
How can I claim to have been a customer if I wasn't the driver?
Do I need to make reference to this point?

The_Deep

Of course, they are claiming that the fact that you were not a customer somehow reinforces their argument that you owe them £££.

Parking-Prankster

Email me the evidence pack. Highview and I are old buddies. Would be a shame to see them stop 'springing into immediate action' and as former customer of the month (self-appointed) I feel it is my duty to point out any flaws in their arguments.


I will send you back your rebuttal points.
My email is [EMAIL="prankster@parking-prankster.com"]prankster@parking-prankster.com[/EMAIL]


I don't have a high post count but I'm sure one of the more regular posters will vouch for me :-)

Weekends_r_2_short

Hi Prankster. I've emailed it to you.

Parking-Prankster

Ah, my dear friends Highview. How I miss them. Its nice to see they are still as incompetent as ever, have no idea what their initial loss is (clue, it is not someone else's purported and speculative loss who is unconnected to the contract) and don't seem to know who the landowner is. Really the assessor can choose anything to uphold this appeal, so unless you get one of the duff ones, all should be plain sailing.


Dear POPLA,


Case 292xxx4xxx


I would like to make the following representations on the evidence. All these points were raised in my original representations to the operator. Please ensure this is put in front of the assessor.


a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is an
unrecoverable penalty and not commercially justified.


Highview Parking have not established any initial loss to themselves. The initial loss is to some unidentified retailer who is not a party to the contract, and does not appear to have any interest in the land. In any case this calculation appears to have been pulled out of the air and does not appear to have any basis in fact. As there is no initial loss to Highview, the whole charge becomes invalid.


In addition, as the car park is managed by ANPR, Highview know the approximate number of cars parked at any time. They have submitted no evidence to prove the car park was full, or nearly full at the time of the parking event, even though they have this data. They have stated the car prevented other vehicles parking, but this is denied.


In addition, the vast bulk of the pre-estimate of loss calculation is for the POPLA appeal; over 60%. POPLA appeals account for only 1-2% of parking tickets issued. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a charge for breach of contract is intended to put the injured party back in the position they were in had no breach occurred. When vast numbers of breaches occur, and tickets are issued in the millions per year (according to the DVLA), the proper way to account for a low probability cost is to average it out over all tickets. Thus, the true average cost per ticket is 2% of £62, or just over £1. Thus the true pre-estimate of loss is under £10.


Finally, I would like to raise a complaint to the lead assessor that this calculation does not appear to be legitimately incurred by Highview, but has been copied almost verbatim from that used by another operator. Obviously, the charges must have been legitimately incurred by the actual operator, and taken from their own accounts; not copied from somebody else. I point the lead adjudicator to the following evidence for this;
1) On page 4, the 'determining costs' paragraph refers to a non-existent 'appendix 1, chitty on contracts.'
2) The GPEOL charges, amounts and wording have all been copied from CP Plus. I refer the assessor to POPLA appeal 1772244009. In addition, the GPEOL calculation in appeal 1772244009 seems to have been copied from a third operator, UK Parking Control, as their name has inadvertently been left in. Fraud therefore seems rife amongst the parking companies.






b). The signage is insufficient, the risk of a charge is not transparent and the wording is ambiguous.


The signage map submitted shows that although there are a number of signs, they are not situated frequently enough through the site, creating large numbers of 'black spots' where cars can park without signs being easily visible.


The phrase 'failure to comply with these terms and conditions may result in a parking charge' has been ruled as ambiguous in several small claims parking cases by judges, and to mean that consumer may reasonable expect a charge will not be applied. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act 1999 applies, and paragraph 7 states that ambiguous terms must be interpreted to the advantage of a consumer. As several judges have ruled the term is ambiguous, by definition it is. Therefore, the charge is not enforceable.



c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
Highview have not submitted any evidence they have a contract with the landowner or even stated who the landowner is. It is not uncommon for a parking company to believe they have a contract with the landowner, only to find the actual landowner is someone else and the contract is invalid.

d). Your written 'notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012.
The notice to keeper fails to have the required elements from paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f) of the protection of freedoms act 2012, schedule 4. Therefore keeper liability does not apply, and as keeper I am therefore not liable.

e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with
myself, or the driver, is denied.
Highview have not addressed this point.

Weekends_r_2_short

Fantastic. I couldn't have done this myself! Thank you so much. I'll post the result here.