Do I have a POPLA case?

jrd9876

Hi all,

This board has been really useful in trying to fight my parking ticket from Premier Parking Solutions in Exeter.

Basically, I appealed to them when the letter eventually came through with a template from here (refused, no surprise) but was wondering if I have a case now for POPLA and what to say? A lot of this legal jargon goes over my head and I don't want to put my foot in it. Any help at all would be appreciated!!

Basically my reasons for appealing are that I did not see the signs (it was pitch black), I did not realise it was a car park (there were no other cars, no spaces marked out, it was a continuation of the road and next to a church...), and that all the other car parks in Exeter are free after 6 (this was about 8pm - so I would have just gone to the free car park a bit further on!).

I will paste in the letter I received after the appeal in the next post so as not to make it too wordy, but I really am at a loss, as I know that nobody really cares about mitigating circumstances and without that then I don't know how to appeal! I just feel hard done by and don't even have the £100 they are demanding!

They do have a lovely photo of one of thier signs (in a bush) with my car in the distance - but surely the assessor will see that you can only read the sign because of the flash on his camera and that is was actually pitch black??

How do you rate my chances?

Any help greatfully received!!

jrd9876

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number xxxxxxx
Site: Mount Dinham
Issue date: 08/10/2014

Further to your email of appeal received on 24/11/2014 regarding the above parking charge, I have now had the opportunity to review this case and my findings are below.

Parking at this site is only for vehicles that are parked in accordance with the site instructions, as detailed on signage on site. This signage is clear, in excess of industry standards and clearly details any charges that may be imposed should these restrictions be contravened, please see the enclosed photographic
evidence which confirms this. The amount sought as the parking charge notice is a term of the contract. We can confirm that we have full authorisation and legal standing to manage, control
and enforce, as Principal, at this site by way of a contract with the land owners.

Vehicles must be parked only in designated areas, with a valid permit clearly on display on the dashboard of the vehicle. The enclosed photographic evidence shows that there was not a permit displayed in this vehicle and I therefore uphold our operatives decision to issue this parking charge notice.

The Parking Charge Notices that we issue represent liquidated and ascertained damages. When a motorist parks in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking, we incur a loss because incorrect
parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. The amount of the Parking Charge Notice represents a genuine pre-estimate of the additional expense incurred by us as a result of this. It will be seen that the charge of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days is within the prescribed guidelines issued by the British Parking Association, our governing body. The charge is in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The genuine pre-estimation of loss refers to costs that we estimated, at
the time of issuing the PCN that may follow from the initial loss for this individual charge only. For further information, regarding genuine pre-estimation of loss, please visit our website

---

on Home Page, Newsfeed, for recent adjudications by POPLA in our favour on this point.

Further to your comments regarding our 'Notice', I can confirm that our notice to keeper letter and parking charge notice fully comply with POFA 2012 and do not breach any regulations. We are unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly. Please forward a payment of £100 to reach us by 01/01/2015 in order to avoid further proceedings; incurring additional costs. Please be aware that when appealing any further the charge will not be placed on hold.

Payments can be made by cheque or postal order - payable to PPS Ltd, or on our website -

---

If your appeal is unsuccessful, you have the opportunity to go to an Independent Appeals Service known as POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals).

Please note that should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.

If you appeal to POPLA then please use the accompanying form, or if your appeal has been submitted electronically please visit

---

for further information. However, if your appeal is dismissed by POPLA, we will use their adjudication in future Court proceedings which may commence without delay
and further costs may be added. xxxxxxxxx is your designated POPLA code. If you choose to do nothing we may proceed with Court action against you.

Please note that by parking in our car park the driver accepts the terms and conditions of parking as advertised on our signage which forms a contract, and it is not possible to cancel this contract once parked and left the vehicle. We would advise that the driver park elsewhere if they are not willing to accept and comply the conditions of parking. If, as the keeper of the vehicle, you do not give the details about the driver or hirer, or if the driver or hirer refuses to acknowledge their liability, you may be liable to pay any unpaid charges in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxx

Ryan_Bryan

Well that is the usual tripe handed out by PPCs to try and blind the unwary. Fortunately, JRD, you have come to a forum where we know what a crock that letter is. The first thing you need to do is read the newbies thread to gen up on PPCs, POPLA and GPEOL.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Pay close attention to the third posting HOW TO WIN AT POPLA. When you're ready to write it come back here for more advice. And cheer up. You're about to cost Premier Parking Solutions £32 for their attempt to scam you.

Coupon-mad

Oh I hope you didn't write this as your appeal, because PPS occasionally win at POPLA, usually when a newbie has gone and appealed and blabbed about who was driving...mitigating circumstances just like this:

'' Basically my reasons for appealing are that I did not see the signs (it was pitch black), I did not realise it was a car park (there were no other cars, no spaces marked out, it was a continuation of the road and next to a church...), and that all the other car parks in Exeter are free after 6 (this was about 8pm - so I would have just gone to the free car park a bit further on!).''

jrd9876

Thanks Ryan, it's glad to get reassurance when they make it seem like their way is the only way. I have looked through the threads before just needed a bit of reassurance, will try and draft a letter tonight but really need to know what to include and what not to bother with...

Thanks CM, I haven't told them who was driving, I looked through these threads before I sent the letter so knew not to bother with any "excuses". Is it worth mentioning them in the POPLA appeal? To me that is why I am appealing...but am I better to just ignore the heart and use all the stuff on this forum? It's all very technical!

Does anyone have any advice about what to include/leave out of a POPLA appeal?

I will try drafting a letter tonight and post it here when I'm done!

Cheers

Redx

you can see examples of popla appeals listed from the NEWBIES sticky thread

you can also see the popla sticky thread detailing all the successful popla appeals too

if you check the popla website, it actually tells you mitigation will not be accepted, so although you can add them its normally pointless as they ignore all non-legal arguments

you are dealing with points of law here, not excuses, leave the excuses for the judge at MCOL if it ever got that far

if you have any questions about the above, you havent researched those sticky threads enough, including the hyperlinks, as its all in there, including templates and examples etc

The_Deep

Do you have a case at PoPLA? I would say that, in view of their ludicrous catalogue of losses, your case is as watertight as a duck's xxxx.

jrd9876

Hi all,

This is the letter I have botched together from this board. Could people please have a look through and let me know and tell em what they think? I really want to make sure that this is all applicable in my situation and makes sense!! Thanks for all the help so far.

xxth December 2014

POPLA verification code xxxxx

Dear POPLA Assessor,

My appeal as registered keeper of the vehicle, comprises these five points:

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff.
2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.
3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.
4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff.
5. Lack of clear, readable signage - no contract with driver.

These points are explained below:

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff.
To quote Assessor Chris Adamson, from a very similar POPLA decision v PPS which shows their true intentions behind their charges, earlier in 2014: ''... ‘No valid ticket or permit displayed’... The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. In this case, I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking. The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss. I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made. Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits.

...It seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.'' Chris Adamson, Assessor (Feb 2014).

I have found another recent POPLA case in relation to PPS which gives the game away about PPS' true intentions in advance. This was POPLA decision reference 6860024043 in February 2014, when Assessor Nozir Uddin decided to allow the appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This was because PPS' intentions prior to parking charges being issued at that site were stated to be that the charge was 'a sum in the nature of a contractual fee rather than a sum for the breach of it'. And yet the signage and rejection letter gave away the fact it was really a matter of breach of contract which required a GPEOL. In that case, PPS tried to argue both scenarios - which cannot be allowed, they cannot say it was either one or the other depending upon which suits. So in order to show what PPS' real intentions were for their charges, prior to my vehicle being parked at this site, here are some excerpts from PPS' statement regarding POPLA case 6860024043:
''The amount sought as a PCN is a term of the contract rather than a sum for the breach of it. This contractual agreement is clearly worded on our warning signage.''
''With regards to the claim that there has been no loss suffered by the company, we consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge and as part of a contractual agreement. ''

So PPS' stated intentions earlier this year were that the charges making up PCNs of £100 issued at Mount Dinham car park, were designed to be a contractual fee; a sum in the nature of a parking charge. The blue sign lists certain fees under the heading 'tariff' and £100 is not one of them. However, I have no idea from the Notice to Keeper how much of the tariff remained unpaid (if at all). This small sum, or a percentage of it, would be the only 'contractual sum' in the alleged contract which can represent consideration. A PCN for £100 is not recoverable in this instance; however PPS try to slant the calculations.

The point I am making is that the suggestion that their charges are based on any loss is untrue because this was not their stated intention in advance. But recently PPS have decided to try their luck by pretending that their intention all along was to charge for loss. Even worse, this approach fooled POPLA on at least two occasions until robust appeals exposing the truth achieved a more measured view, as in POPLA code 6861754004 (PPS again) where Assessor Ricky Powell noticed the heavily duplicated and frankly ridiculous staffing costs:

''I am not satisfied that the pre-estimate of loss supplied by the Operator reflects the charge issued. I find that the ‘appeal writing’ loss asserted is duplicated in two heads of loss. The ‘Appeals staff’ appeals writing costs are included in the sum for £9.51. However, there are further appeal writing costs included in the ‘Management’ costs, which total £71.65. It has not been explained how the individual heads of loss included under the heading ‘Management’ are calculated. It is also impossible to determine what contribution the appeal writing costs contribute to the total of £71.65. Therefore, I cannot find that the total costs for ‘Management’ are substantiated and so must disregard them from the total genuine pre-estimate of loss. The total pre-estimate after subtracting the above £71.65 is £31.18. I find that this does not substantially amount to the issued £100 charge and that it does not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss caused by the Appellant’s breach. Therefore, I find that the parking charge is not enforceable in this case. '' (Ricky Powell, Assessor, August 2014).

It seems to me that PPS have tried to mislead POPLA to gain pecuniary advantage against motorists who have all paid the tariff and can prove it. This is unsupportable and unprofessional, as is the massaged 'loss statement' that they now suddenly use to try to magically meet the sum of the PCN. In simple terms:

- PPS must think I was born yesterday if they think I believe that they 'thought there was an initial loss' when yet another of PPS' extra-flimsy tickets slipped.
- It beggars belief that managers and directors would spend hours on each POPLA case. There are too many layers of repeated checks by highly paid staff to be credible.
- PPS use a template POPLA 'GPEOL' summary & response so it is not individually written nor even applicable to my own case at all.
- staff/NI are all tax-deductible costs of running a business and do not directly flow from one alleged breach in a car park where there was no initial loss.
- PPS staff do not just handle appeals, their work includes dealing with clients/permits, and Directors have supervisory/staffing/new business and Management duties so I am not liable to pay their wages nor to line the pockets of PPS owner with yet more profits. The sum of £71.65 is laughable in their GPEOL statement.
- POPLA related 'work' cannot apply to each PCN as a 'genuine pre-estimate', because only 1% or 2% of cases ever get to POPLA stage.
- Since the vast majority will never to go to appeal, let alone as far as POPLA, this is comparable to cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs. In those cases, POPLA routinely dismiss those heads on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable'. The same applies to 'POPLA costs'.
- If I had not appealed at all, instead paying between day 14 and day 28 then the full cost of the PCN would have applied. Why? How does PPS' GPEOL explain that?
- The other 'business costs' (including a DVLA fee that in fact costs £2.50 and stationery/postage) cannot be added since this does not flow from all PCNs.

Where an Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach and a large percentage of the amount comes from staff costs, they must be able to justify those heads as relating to every typical PCN (whether appealed or not). In the case of PPS they include several layers of checks on the work of other staff members - I would contend this is an unnecessary amount of checks and that the Operator has not shown that the items referred to are substantially linked to the loss incurred by every breach.

Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."

As PPS have since changed their GPEOL calculations from the version presented to POPLA Assessors just a few months ago, then I contend that the calculation (even if it were a more credible effort than this one) must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. As such, the latest effort by PPS is disingenuous and is merely an over-inflated and duplicated new 'calculation of alleged actual loss, made afterwards'. It is not enforceable according to the words of Mr Greenslade.

Furthermore PPS state in their rejection letter that they “incur a loss because incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park” and yet, as is clear by their own pictures there were no other cars in the vicinity. How is this preventing efficient management when there is nothing else to manage? It is not even clear that this is a car park, being that it is a continuation of the road and there are no marked bays.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.
The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is not properly given under the POFA 2012. The NTK does not tell me as keeper what the contravention was and how much of the tariff allegedly remains unpaid for what length of parking period. In this car park there are multiple possibilities and the NTK fails to confirm me of the position (which cannot be 'either/or'). So, I am left to wonder, are PPS saying that the driver failed to pay any tariff, or paid a partial tariff/overstayed, or paid with RingGo but suffered a failure of that system, or perhaps input the car registration wrongly, or paid in full but the P&D ticket was not seen on display? The NTK fails to tell me.

Further non-compliance with the POFA is the omission of the following wording as found in paragraph 8 of schedule 4:

'‘(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’
(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available''

In addition, the Notice contains misleading wording which not only states a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist but also breaches the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14: 'Misrepresentation of authority':

14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority.'

In bold at the top of the Notice is the underlined word 'Important' and therein follows this misleading imaginary deadline and threat:

'Failure to pay the parking charge within 14 days of receiving it, without reasonable excuse, could lead to legal proceedings being issued.'

This impersonates Police wording and is patently not true. There is no 14 day deadline at all and a person does not need 'reasonable excuse' not to pay or appeal a private parking charge.

This is compounded by another large font paragraph in bold: 'Only payment in full will prevent us from taking further action'. It is utterly misleading and untrue that the keeper's ONLY option is to pay in full because of course there is the option to appeal. POPLA will notice that the NTK completely omits any details (even on the back) about how to appeal and the keeper's right to POPLA. There is nothing about it at all, so I hope that POPLA may be minded to report this serious omission to the BPA Ltd.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has previously confirmed that a NTK is 'fundamental to establishing keeper liability' and if the Notice is not properly given it is therefore a nullity. It is a strict requirement of POFA that all statutory conditions must be met and stated wording included, in order for keeper liability to be established. This Notice to Keeper was not properly 'given'.

3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.
I require PPS to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. I believe PPS have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I believe they are merely a commercial agent for the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing. A PPS 'witness statement' would not refute this appeal point, since the following issues would be hidden:
- whether the contract allows for a contractual fee model
- whether this contravention is actually stated in the contract
- whether PPS are an agent and when the contract expires/renews
- the site boundary and scope of the operation
- what the charges are for each alleged contravention
- any 'revenue sharing' which must be reflected in the calculations

To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either! If a witness statement is produced then I will be rebutting it.

4. Lack of clear, readable signage - no contract with driver.

Such as they are, the signs are placed high up, in vegetation and are unlit, so that in darkness (and it was dark when I parked) no signs are visible and the words (on an unreflective background) are certainly unreadable. I put PPS to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash. There is no entrance sign, no lighting on site and any sign that the driver may have passed is certainly not prominent, not reflective and was placed too high to be lit by headlights. The fact is that if the words are not readable at dusk or in the hours of darkness then no contract was capable of being formed. The signs breach the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders signs unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit...should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads''.

There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed to and from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not 'customers' of PPS and not expecting to read a contract when they arrive to shop. No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

The signs are certainly not 'startling'. Nor was there any lighting to illuminate the terms, which were in a very small font. 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'. Terms on a notice are not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of the terms and agreed to them in their entirety

This concludes my appeal.

Yours sincerely,

---

fkrjd

could someone check this over for me before I submit it to POPLA please

Dear POPLA,
I am the registered keeper and driver of this lease vehicle and this is my appeal citing the following reasons

1 No GPEOL
2 Lack of signage
3 Lack of standing
4 Unfair Terms

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Their sign states the charge is for 'not fully complying with the conditions' so this Operator must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I pay £13:41 a month for the privilege to park at this site and my permit was displayed as required, so clearly there was no loss to the landowner. I may also add that I am not guaranteed a parking space so if I had not been able to park I myself would've have arguably incurred a loss.There is no loss flowing from this parking event because the car park was full, so if by parking on a grass verge there was no loss of potential income in an already full car park.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2) Lack of signage - no contract with driver
I see that the sign is placed high up. I put TPS to strict proof otherwise; The sign is not prominent, placed too high A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.


3) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
TPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put TPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). TPS have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that TPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require TPS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.



4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms
The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

A sign of terms was placed to high to read easily, is far from 'transparent'.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a car park where the bays are full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Umkomaas

Sorry, only skim-read this, but you seem, latterly, to be referring to TPS (in post #9 - but not before). Are they involved in your PCN?

Umkomaas

Oh Jeez, just realised this is all over the place! fkrjd, this is rjd9876's thread. You need to sort this out (unless you're one and the same - forum name very similar) cos you're confusing the hell out of me! !!!!!!!