PTL Parking fine in underground parking

Fleritta

I am sorry for posting a separate thread, I would be happy to merge it but haven't found this option anywhere.

I have edited the beginning to avoid suggesting who the driver was:

...

I am the keeper of XXXXXXX. On 29th December 2014 an invoice of £100 was received for a “parking charge” at the XXXXXXX Building underground parking from Parking Ticketing Limited (PTL) stating that the vehicle was parked on private property in contravention of the site parking restrictions as displayed on signage or permit.


First of all, the vehicle in question was parked at the location with a VALID parking permit, making P.T.L.’s allegations of invalid permit simply false. Since the only reason stated in the parking charge notice was invalid permit, the explanation above should be sufficient to dismiss P.T.L’s argument.

In addition to the above the Parking Charge Notice from PTL can be also challenged on the following grounds:

....

Yes, you are right, I received a notice to driver only and appealed it right away as I am not a registered keeper of the vehicle, it belongs to my employer. So shall delete point 3 completely?


Thank you

Umkomaas

PM Crabman (forum guide) and he'll do the merge. It then keeps everything together so things can be cross-referenced when commenting on your appeal, which would otherwise be undertaken in a complete vacuum.

You'll find a link to Crabman near the top of the forum index via his sticky there.

Crabman

Duplicate threads have been merged

Fruitcake

You need to immediately delete your vehicle details!

Fleritta

Fruitcake wrote: »

You need to immediately delete your vehicle details!

Sorry!!!! Done

Fleritta

Dear all,

Thank you very much for your help! The POPLA appeal is submitted. Will be waiting for decision now...

I will let you know.

Coupon-mad

Let us know when you receive the evidence pack (check your email spam regularly!) before the POPA decision, sometime in February. And...if that evidence arrives in February and it's got past day 56 since the parking event - then you can also add to your final rebuttal email to POPLA, that:

'There is no keeper liability anyway because as their own evidence shows, the Operator has never served a Notice to Keeper and it is now beyond day 56 so they are too late to hold me liable as keeper. The driver has never been divulged and I do not even drive (have never driven this car and do not have a driving licence) so it was certainly not myself! Where a keeper appeals and the driver is not divulged, the only way an Operator can establish keeper liability would have been to comply with the conditions in Schedule 4 which includes a mandatory Notice to Keeper (regardless of appeal).'

But you can't do that yet as you are not past day 56 (are you?) and you don't want to alert the PPC to this omission. Shhhh!

Fleritta

Dear all,

Sorry it took me a bit of time to update you on the status. My baby keeps us on our toes at all times:)
Thanks to your help my appeal was allowed by POPLA! There are no words to explain how grateful I am!

Fleritta

Here is the decision:

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site and that
a parking charge notice was issued after the operator’s employee observed
the vehicle and concluded that no permit was sufficiently clearly displayed.
The appellant made a number of representations, but I need only deal with
the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that the charge does not
represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The operator rejected the representations. In regard to the genuine preestimate
of loss issue, the operator stated that the charge represented a
genuine pre-estimate of loss, and provided supporting statements.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not
provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to
enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the
case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased. Once
such a loss is shown, losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a
loss that is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow
from a breach, an initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect
of them. The operator’s statement about lost pay and display revenue does
not show an initial loss, since parking is for permit holders only, so no pay and
display revenue can be gained from the site. As an initial loss must be shown
in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the
operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Therefore the charge notice is invalid. Having found this, I am not required to
consider any further issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor

Fleritta

Thank you very much for your help!