Ticket on company owned van, how to appeal?

willberine

Hello

We have received an NTK following a windscreen ticket on our van earlier this year.

My company is called 'Joe Bloggs Ltd'

Do I appeal as 'Joe Bloggs Ltd' or do I have to name the driver or appeal as an individual?

I assume POFA 2012 is no longer relevant to the NTK due to the company being the keeper rather than an individual?

Thanks

bod1467

POFA still applies. Whoever in the company that is in charge of the vehicle fleet simply responds to the NtK in the company's name. The options are to:

1/ Name the driver, although this just dobs in the driver as the PPC will have a named person to pursue - no appeals available as there has already been a windscreen ticket.

2/ Respond as keeper and send the initial appeal from the NEWBIES thread.

Is the PPC a BPA or IPC member?

willberine

Thanks for your reply, will go ahead and appeal as the RK in company name then.

The PPC is a BPA member.......

Coupon-mad

Hello again willberine!

Do you know I was musing over this the other day and definitely thought to myself, companies should appeal as 'company'. Really I was thinking about IPC cases where the Assessors like to say 'we assume the appellant was the driver' and of course the driver can't be 'Bloggs Ltd'. Hence why not to give the PPC a name to seize upon, IMHO, even for a BPA firm.

Which PPC have you got one from this time?!

Ryan_Bryan

You could always have the company secretary Miss Squiggle sign a letter on behalf of Joe Bloggs Ltd.

willberine

Hi CM! This time it is from UKPC.......

I will appeal it as 'Joe Bloggs Ltd' seeing as that is the name of the keeper, and it is being appealed as keeper!

Thanks

rdr

A company is a legal person and so can sue and be sued. I don't think even in the IAS's fantasy world they can drive though.

Coupon-mad

rdr wrote: »

A company is a legal person and so can sue and be sued. I don't think even in the IAS's fantasy world they can drive though.

Exactly - an argument that even the IAS surely couldn't disagree with (hmmm!!). Luckily this will be POPLA and easy peasy to win.

willberine

So UKPC have acknowledged my appeal and I am awaiting their response, which should be due any time soon. In the meantime i received a threatogram from Debt Recovery Plus, so that was a blatant breach of the Code of Practice! Complaint logged with BPA and I have been given a reference number, they say they will contact me once they have spoken to the operator/s about my complaint.

All fun and games :-)

bod1467

That's UKPC's usual modus operandi at the moment ... send the DRP letter and hope they pay, and if they don't then accept the appeal so we don't get fleeced any further at POPLA.

willberine

Oh goodie i've received a rejection letter with POPLA code, still waiting to hear from BPA about their breach of the CoP.

How does this look as a start for POPLA appeal, bearing in mind this was a FREE car park...


On **/**/** UKPC issued a parking charge notice of £60 because a vehicle was ‘not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space’
As the registered keeper of the above vehicle this parking charge notice is being appealing against the above charge. I contend that there is no liability for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. Failure to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012

3. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

Here are the detailed appeal points:

1. The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
[FONT=&quot]
The demand for payment is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could possibly have been suffered by the Landowner or the Operator due to the fact that the car park is a free car park. A UKPC sign states that a PCN would be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking, which indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. UKPC has not provided any evidence as to how and why the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty charge.

I put UKPC to strict proof that that their charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss. To date UKPC have refused to provide me with a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this free car park and this alleged incident. I am aware, from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications, of the cost of running the business. For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, wages, uniforms, signage, office costs) would still have been the same. It cannot be accepted that overheads such as these can be contributed to the ‘loss’ incurred by a parking violation in a free car park. The loss to the operator and landowner is nil. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
UKPC have helped prove my point by effectively confirming that their charge cannot possibly represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss caused by the parking event. Initially the charge was £60 if paid within 14 days and if not it would rise to £100. Upon receiving the appeal rejection letter with the POPLA code, it is clear that UKPC have varied their 'loss' claim massively from £60 initially then up to £100 on their Notice to Keeper and up to £160 via their debt collection agency ‘Debt Recovery Plus’ and then back down to a ‘reduced rate; of £60. UKPC must explain in their evidence for POPLA, how a loss amount apparently flowing from a specific parking incident can suddenly be increased twice and then reduced significantly.[/FONT] There is absolutely no credibility in their demands or allegations of losses incurred.

[FONT=&quot]The Department for Transport guidelines state that: "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." In the Office of Fair Trading information to the BPA about parking charges: ''The OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists.” 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.“[/FONT]

2. Failure to establish keeper liability.


Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability
Under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act, specifically Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, UKPC must identify the creditor who is legally entitled to recover parking charges on their Notice to Keeper. They have failed to do so, and so they have no right under the PoFA to reclaim parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability under Paragraph 8 or 9 it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued. UK Parking Control Ltd has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’. This may, in law, be UK Parking Control Ltd or its client, its debt collecting agent, or the landowner or indeed some other party. Schedule 4 of the Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have the words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is...”.
The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not just indicate that the creditor must be named/assumed, but “identified”. The owner of the vehicle is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom the driver has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the ‘Creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, UK Parking Control Ltd has failed to establish keeper liability. In this case, the Notice to Keeper has not been correctly ‘given’ under POFA2012 and so it is a nullity.


3. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and adhered to the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company. I will not accept a witness statement as it will not disclose aspects of the contract with the landowner such as:
- revenue sharing
- what the restrictions are as stated in the contract
- whether UKPC are an agent
- the site boundary and scope of the operation
- what the charges are and why they are the same for any alleged contravention
- specific dates & details
Further to this, a witness statement has been shown not to be acceptable to POPLA in decision 1771073004 by Nozir Uddin. To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, and I confirm that I will not post this on any forum nor on the internet.



4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.




It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

This concludes my appeal.