Parking fine at work

Coupon-mad

Yep it's in post #3 of the Newbies thread and it is so easy to beat this bunch, you will be amazed you were ever worried!

fkrjd

How about this? I should add that I pay a monthly fee for parking but am not guaranteed a parking space is this legal? TPS is a member of BPA

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.

Coupon-mad

That's a good start now, but you won't be able to use point #4 if you have given away who was driving, in your first appeal. Nor do you have to hide behind 'I am the keeper' talking about 'the driver' in the third person IF that ship has already sailed. If you did already appeal on mitigating circumstances and they know who was driving I would add in some more relevant information to help your arguments, such as adding within point #1 ' I pay £13 a month for the privilege to park at this site and my permit was displayed, so clearly there was no loss to the landowner. '

And unless you parked at night if you are a night-shift worker, why haven't you changed this bit? ''they must show photos in darkness taken without a camera flash. The sign is not prominent, not reflective & placed too high to be lit by headlights. ''

A template is pointless just copied and pasted without you reading it and changing stuff to suit! You even said in your first post some relevant information about the lack of any sign about grass verges, yet your template hasn't been tweaked to suit your case yet. This is your appeal and if you've already said who was driving then remove point #4 and re-read it and alter the bits that make no sense for your parking event. You don't have to know anything about parking 'law' to know whether it was dark or not!

fkrjd

this was my initial appeal to TPS

Today at 14:14 I was issued with a parking charge notice. I wish to appeal this decision. I have a vailid parking permit for the hospital which is prominently displayed (photographic evidence is available) and was sent. I was parked on a grass verge in the hospital grounds, nowhere in the surrounding area was there any sineage saying parking was not permitted in the area I had parked nor were there any bollards or obstacles preventing me from parking there (photographic evidence is available) and was sent. As a result of this I felt it was alright to park were I had albeit not ideal due to the muddy nature of the grass verge. I await your decision etc etc

Fruitcake

Your appeal looks better now you have amended it. You could add at the beginning that you are the keeper and driver, and I think you should also add an index.

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 ....

You also need to add the obvious stuff (but not on here) such as PCN number etcetera.

fkrjd

I really do appreciate your help with this. I was ok with the old rules and have helped people out in the past. I'm learning the new rules so hopefully will be able to help others in the future

Fruitcake

fkrjd wrote: »

I really do appreciate your help with this. I was ok with the old rules and have helped people out in the past. I'm learning the new rules so hopefully will be able to help others in the future

That looks OK to me but I suggest you let one of the experts double check it before you submit it.

As I said before, it will help if you just post a one liner to say you have amended your appeal otherwise people who have looked at it once won't do so again because they won't know you have made any changes.

Alas I am about to head off across the manufactory for a work break now.

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.

fkrjd

Just to clarify something. The ticket says its a parking charge notice does this have a bearing on what I should do? Someone has told me I have to pay it

Coupon-mad

fkrjd wrote: »

Just to clarify something. The ticket says its a parking charge notice does this have a bearing on what I should do? Someone has told me I have to pay it

What a prat that person is, LOL! They are ALL called a parking charge notice!