legion group no popla number

Herzlos

toddstar wrote: »

The BPA Code of Practice clause 19.5 states:

“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 proportionate and commercially justifiable.“

That's new. Are they changing things to fit in with the Beavis appeal?

toddstar

yes ralph-y, they said my appeal would be considered on or soon after 09/03/15

Ralph-y

POPLA can over run dates by several days .

So unless any one suggests differently then wait a few more days

Ralph:cool:

Edna_Basher

The absence of an evidence pack could mean that they have not submitted one to POPLA; equally, it could mean that they have provided POPLA with an evidence pack but haven't bothered to send you a copy.

A couple of months ago this happened to me with a Smart Parking appeal I'd been working on. I e-mailed POPLA shortly before the scheduled appeal hearing date to let them know that I had received no evidence from Smart. POPLA replied to tell me that they had received Smart's evidence pack. I complained to POPLA and Smart; two days later, Smart cancelled the parking charge before POPLA had the chance to rule against them.

There’s no harm in sending an e-mail to [EMAIL="appeals@popla.org.uk"]appeals@popla.org.uk[/EMAIL] along the lines of.......


"Dear POPLA Appeals Team

POPLA Verification Code 0123456789

With reference to the above-detailed POPLA appeal and in follow up to your notification that the Operator would send me its evidence prior to my POPLA hearing scheduled to take place on or soon after 9th March 2015, I write to advise you that I have received no communication from the Operator in this respect.

It is possible that the Operator may have already sent you its evidence and it may simply have been an oversight that it did not also provide me with this. If this is so, then I should be very grateful if you would send me a copy of the Operator’s submission as a matter of urgency.

Alternatively, if the Operator has not provided you with its evidence, please let me know by return. Although I would be very disappointed to learn that the Operator had failed to engage in the arbitration process, if this is indeed the case may I assume that my appeal to POPLA is upheld?

I look forward to hearing from you.


Yours faithfully”


If nothing else, this establishes a written record that you have not received any evidence from the Operator.

toddstar

thanks very much for that edna, I will email popla.

The_Deep

They have shot themselves in the foot with that letter. By claiming Beavis they are misrepresenting the position, i.e. attempting to obtain monies by falsehood.

Whatever else you do, and whoever else you write to, you should bring the attention of your local Trading Standards Officer.

toddstar

hello all, thread update time again. won my case. popla emailed last week with a rather short and sweet response to say that the ppc has cancelled my ticket. looks like the ppc gave up without offering any evidence to popla.

so i would like to say a big thank you to all who helped me and to all that contribute and make this forum what it is. and let me also give a special thanks not only to the driver of my vehicle but to the legion group bloke working the thomas linacre centre car park in wigan on 10/11/14. had it not been for him providing the windscreen ticket, i would never have been able to convince legion group to spend money on the dvla and popla. so if you are reading this legion group, please thank your car park attendant for me.

for those who are searching the forum looking for legion group, here's a recap of my case including my popla appeal letter and their response:

10/11/14 windscreen ticket from legion group for 'your vehicle was not parked in a designated parking space' at the thomas linacre centre in wigan.

15/12/14 received ntk in post from ppc. replied a couple days later using unedited ntk appeal template from newbies sticky.

30/12/14 received appeal rejection letter from ppc but no popla ref number provided.

31/12/14 emailed steve at bpa (cc'd legion group in on the email too) to complain about ppc breaking yet more code of practice by not providing a popla ref number in their appeal rejection letter. got an email back from steve a few hours later asking me to forward a transcript of my ntk appeal to gemma at bpa.

05/01/15 received email from gemma at bpa advising ppc has put my popla ref code in the post.

06/01/15 received popla code in the post from ppc.

01/02/15 submitted popla appeal online.

03/02/15 received acknowledgement from popla advising that my appeal will be considered on or soon after 09/03/15.

12/03/15 hadn't heard anything so emailed popla asking them to provide me with any evidence that the ppc had submitted or cancel my ticket.

17/03/15 still no response, sent a copy of the same email as on 12/03/15 to popla again.

19/03/15 received email from popla advising ppc has cancelled my ticket.

there are four boxes which you can tick any or all of when submitting your popla appeal, i only ticked 'i am not liable for the parking charge'.

here is my popla appeal letter submitted online 01/02/15:

Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and this is my appeal against PCN XXXXXXX:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge of £40 levied for ‘your vehicle was not parked in a designated parking space’ is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice section 19.

The BPA Code of Practice clause 19.5 states:
"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 proportionate and commercially justifiable."

This is followed by clause 19.6 which states:
"If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable."

The BPA Code of Practice requires that if a parking charge is for an alleged breach of contract then it must prove to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the incident. This cannot be a subsequently devised statement as this would not be a pre-estimate. The Appellant requests that Legion Group provides a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated in the form of documented, specific evidence applicable to this car park and this alleged incident. According to previous POPLA adjudications and Court rulings, running costs, such as erecting signage, wages, uniform and office costs may not be included in the calculations as they would have occurred whether a breach occurred or not.

Given that Legion Group apparently charge the same lump sum for parking outside the marked lines of a bay as they would an overstay, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious and damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this alleged breach of contract by Legion Group.

2) Poor signage - no contract with driver

Please refer to uploaded photographic evidence. (a photograph of the entrance sign)

The entrance sign breaches the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver:

"Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format.''

"You must always mention that terms and conditions apply and say where to find more details about them.”

"Signs at the entrance to the parking area should clearly show the type of parking; and if, when and how any payment should be made. Ideally the AOS logo should be incorporated to indicate that the parking is managed under a Code of Practice.”

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 terms and conditions; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.

3) Non compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA2 2012
On the NTK, the 'period of parking' is not shown, only the time of issue of an alleged PCN making this a non-compliant NTK under the POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

Schedule 4 para8(1): "A notice which is to be relied on as a {NTK is given} if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates."

The NTK is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.

4) Non compliant Appeal Rejection – Breach of BPA Code of Practice
On the letter of Appeal Rejection, Legion Group shows its complete disregard for the BPA Code of Practice and the POPLA appeals process by deliberately trying to mislead the Appellant into paying £15 to formally close this case. Legion Group fails to mention POPLA and the Appellants right to appeal. This behaviour is in breach of the BPA Code of Practice:

Section 22 Complaints, challenges and appeals - Operator Procedures - 22.12 “If you reject an appeal you must tell the motorist how to make an appeal to POPLA. This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal and a valid 10-digit verification code. Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in a prominent position on the first page of the rejection letter.”

It was only as a result of complaining to the BPA that Legion Group decided to provide the Appellant with a POPLA verification code.

5) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
Legion Group 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 Legion Group to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Legion Group 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 Legion Group are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Legion Group 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.

6) 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."

An entrance sign that does not state that the car park is managed or that there are terms and conditions of parking 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 put Legion Group to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, 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.

---

here is the response from popla received 19/03/15:

Dear Sir or Madam

XXXX XXXX(Appellant)
-v-
OCS Group (UK) Limited t/as Legion Group Plc (Operator)

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number XXXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXXX.

Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Reeve
Service Manager

Umkomaas

@toddstar. Great result and superb synopsis of the entire episode. Well done on both counts.

Suspect you've had a crafty glass or two in celebration?

Now, after all the celebration is all over, please do us a favour and tell all your friends about the private car park 'management' charade, the business model of which is principally aimed at issuing penalties to motorists and relieving them of eye-watering amounts of money. As you now know, they can be seen off with help from the forum, and some resilience on their part.

Use Facebook and Twitter to tell your friends, and ask them to pass on the message to their friends. The more people know, the more sense we can knock into this system.

MalcG_2

MalcG wrote: »

Hi
I have just had a parking ticket from LegionGroup as well. I was parking on a side road by Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley. I got there at 15:45, and returned to the car at 16:20. I wasnt parked on any yellow or red lines. I wasnt blocking anyone in. There were red lines across the other side of the road but not on mine. There was a sign about the red route but that was about 60 yards further up. Behind a fence on the hospital grounds there was a sign saying permit holders only, but I was the other side of the fence. On the ticket they have ticked 'failure to display a valid P & D ticket or permit'. They have put the time as I arrived at 15:20 and left 15:05 which takes some doing. I was at my grandsons school at 15:20 with my daughter which the teacher could confirm. I checked the car in front and behind and they had no permit that I could see. How do I stand with this?
Thanks in advance
Malc

Update
Today on 14/4/15 Legion sent me an email to say they have cancelled the ticket! I was going to put it on here but there is no way to upload a pdf file. You can beat them.:rotfl:

pogofish

MalcG wrote: »

Update
Today on 14/4/15 Legion sent me an email to say they have cancelled the ticket! I was going to put it on here but there is no way to upload a pdf file. You can beat them.:rotfl:

Please don't hijack other people's threads!

There is also an established thread for posting details of victories and the reason you can't post links/uploads was adequately explained to you on signup.