P4 Parking Popla

Agooner

Hi all.

I need your advice:

Parking where we live is allocated, with each resident having to park in their own numbered bay and display a permit that matches that bay. My in-laws parked in our neighbour's space, because someone else was parked in our bay. As a result our neighbour parked in another resident's bay, with a note on his dashboard explaining why he was parked in another bay. Though he had a valid permit and the note explaining that someone else was parked in his bay, he received a PCN.

The PCN was received on 17th November, he appealed on the same day on the grounds stated above. The operator in question, P4 parking responded, with the letter copied below and a POPLA Code.

Thank you for your email, which has been passed for our attention and which we have read with interest.

Further to and in response to your appeal, P4Parking has been contracted by the landowners or agents thereof to ensure that vehicles are only allowed to be parked on the land with authority.

This authority is dependent upon the rules as laid down by the landowners or bodies acting on behalf of such estate, land or development. P4Parking has the authority to charge any vehicle that is parked contrary to these regulations.

The area where your vehicle was charged has a policy to which all attending vehicles must park within the pre-informed parking criteria. The contravention you have been breached with specifically is for:
 Parked in wrong bay.
Parking restrictions on this site, clearly state that parking permits are only valid for the allocated bays displayed on the permit.

With regards to your appeal of the parking charge issued and having inspected all data available, which includes your letter and contents of appeal, photographs taken at the time of the charge issued by the warden and all additional 3rd party information available to us, I must make the following points very clearly.

It is the responsibility of the person parking to demonstrate the correct display of the relevant permit and or adherence to the rules governing the parking of the vehicle(s) within the grounds. If in doubt, P4Parking Office operates 5 days a week Monday to Friday from 9:00am till 5:00pm a manned control-room whose staffs are willing and able to advice on the validity of your parking prior to any charge being issued. Patrols on the development operate 24Hrs a day, 7 day’s a week. This contact number is available on any P4Parking warning notice and is placed throughout the private grounds as well as being on all permit documents issued by and on behalf of P4Parking.

Although I sympathise with your concerns, at the time of your vehicle contravention and subsequent issuance with a Parking Charge Notice there was Permit not verifiable and was therefore correctly charged under the power given to us by the landowner.

When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park. It is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that he or she abides by any clearly displayed conditions of parking.

After careful consideration, therefore, I must advise you that your application for a PCN cancellation has been denied.

You have the legal right to submit a second appeal to POPLA (please see attached forms). P4Parking cannot deal with any subsequent appeal relating to this PCN.

POPLA REF: Dated 25/11/2014

Furthermore, it is our duty to inform you that you should choose to submit to POPLA, you will lose all the opportunities to pay the discount rate.

You have fourteen days from the date this letter was sent to you to pay the PCN reduced rate of £60.00. After this period, please be aware that you have to pay the full charging fee amount of £100.00.

You can make the payment choosing one of the alternatives:
 Send us a cheque by post
 By postal order on the address written on the bottom of the ticket
 Online, visiting https://www.p4parking.co.uk
Choosing not to pay will give us the freedom to legally solve this problem. I am sorry that this is not the answer for which you would have hoped.

Yours sincerely,

Appeals Department P4Parking


Being partly responsible, as my in-laws parked in his space, I have suggested that he appeals to POPLA and that we'll pay should he lose. I know this forum has a near 100% record in winning POPLA appeals and therefore have no intention of losing.

Can someone please suggest which direction to go with the POPLA appeal. The signs (a picture of which are in the link below) on the approach to the underground car park state that "residents must park in their allocated bay where applicable" (in really small print underneath, residents are instructed to contact the parking regulator if unsure)



Thanks for your help.

pogofish

The Newbies Sticky - Post Three has all you need to win at POPLA. Read it carefully and post any questions back here.

Coupon-mad

Wow what an ugly, garish sign - what's wrong with dark blue on white which would be much more readable?!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0obalq9sdmc3zes/p4%20parking%20notice.jpg?dl=0

But the good thing is, it says that magic word 'contravening' which means you can argue (among other things) no GPEOL and no initial loss. make sure the appeal is in the name of the person entitled to appeal (neighbour) not your name, even if you actually do it for them.

In the NEWBIES thread post #3 hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA' there are loads of windscreen ticket examples where there has been 'no initial loss', so look to use one of those as your basis for a draft, changing the details where needed. You will win.

Agooner

Hi @pogofish and @Coupon-mad,

Below is my response, I will make sure that it is all in my neighbour's name and not mine. It focuses on there being no GPEOL and P4Parking not having the rights to enforce contract with drivers.

Should I also add that the sign by the entrance of the underground car park is on a slope that is not visible when in a car. The design and font also make the "contract" illegible. Also, should I include that the driver was unable to park in the allocated space because another vehicle was in the bay.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Operator: Nighthawk Parking (Trading name of P4Parking (UK) Ltd)

I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. 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. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce contracts with drivers

1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued. P4Parking 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.

I require P4Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit but was unable to park in the right bay as this was occupied by another car. 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', if P4Parking attempt that argument. 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.''


2. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that P4Parking does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require P4Parking to supply:

• A copy of the current contract with the landowner (and if their contract is merely with another agent, then proof of the agreement of the landowner)
• A copy of the wording of the current permit scheme, the document where residents were advised which is the 'right way' to display these permits and what to do when allocated bays are incorrectly occupied by other car, which consequently stop the driver from parking in his/her's allocated space.

Furthermore, I require that P4Parking demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that P4Parking can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform P4Parking to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Should I also add that the sign by the entrance of the underground car park is on a slope that is not visible when in a car. The design and font also make the "contract" illegible.

Yes in a paragraph 'unclear signage not forming a contract with the driver'.

Also, should I include that the driver was unable to park in the allocated space because another vehicle was in the bay.

No.

Also you should have a paragraph about 'no keeper liability' unless he has already gone and admitted who was driving in the first appeal and thrown that slam-dunk winning point away...happens all the time...

The_Deep

As this is a contractual term, which attracts v.a.t., what did the invoice say about v.a.t.? If it did not mention it read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5087925=

Agooner

@ Coupon-mad I will include a paragraph about the unclear signage. Unfortunately in my neighbour's first appeal he already stated that he was driving! He responded before I could speak to him.

Is it still worth continuing with the appeal to POPLA?

Coupon-mad

Oh yes - he will win on 'no GPEOL'.

Agooner

Thanks all for your contributions.

I've finished the letter to POPLA and feel that it's ready to go. Can someone else please peruse it and let me know if there's anything else I should include.

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Operator: Nighthawk Parking (Trading name of P4Parking (UK) Ltd)

I am the keeper of the vehicle that was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. 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. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce contracts with drivers
3. Unclear signage not forming a contract with the driver

1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued. P4Parking 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.

I require P4Parking to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit but was unable to park in the right bay as this was occupied by another car. 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', if P4Parking attempt that argument. 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.''


2. No contract assigning rights to P4Parking to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers

The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that P4Parking does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices neither in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require P4Parking to supply:

• A copy of the current contract with the landowner (and if their contract is merely with another agent, then proof of the agreement of the landowner)

• A copy of the wording of the current permit scheme, the document where residents were advised which is the 'right way' to display these permits and what to do when allocated bays are incorrectly occupied by other car, which consequently stop the driver from parking in his/her's allocated space.

Furthermore, I require that P4Parking demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that P4Parking can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.

3. Unclear signage not forming a contract with the driver

The entrance to the underground car park where the PCN was issued is on a slope and as such drivers are unable to see the operator's sign. The sign that outlines the "binding contractual agreement" is fixed at a height that makes it unreadable from a car. Also, the terms are written in white font and on blue background hence making the terms illegible, particularly at night. As such, the restrictions were not obvious and nor were the terms drawn to the driver's attention in any explicit way - certainly not the risk of any hefty 'charge'.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform P4Parking to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes I would send that off then as you can't add anything about keeper liability.