Appealing against Nappy-er

ItsJustCurtis

Hi guys, I've been leafing through the various pinned posts and what not as I have received a thinly disguised Penalty via NtK. Going through the forums it seems that the aforementioned puts up quite a fight and are a bit more difficult than most to appeal. Any advise?

Circumstances:
Overnight stay
Communal/Residents indoor parking area
pre-paid Visitor Permits covering the duration of the stay
Outdoor visitor parking full (only ~10 spaces for a 500+ apartment complex)
Reason for Issue: Failure to display a valid permit.

So yeah, I was about to copy the pre-written appeal letter but I have a feeling that might not work with these guys. I was previously led to believe that you can safely ignore PCN's from anyone except council bodies.

I hope you can help, Thanks

Fight_the_good_fight

Firstly ignore is old advice,you need to clarify without speaking in forked tongue when the alleged infringement was,when the NtK was received as they are both time relevant and so is your response as RK only as well

Return to newbies thread have a good read then come back with any questions you may have and you WILL get the help you need. :beer:

Redx

ItsJustCurtis wrote: »

I was previously led to believe that you can safely ignore PCN's from anyone except council bodies.

if in england or wales, that advice was prior to october 2012 and its now jan 2015 !

times change, (see POFA 2012)

ItsJustCurtis

Hi Guys, thanks for that. The alleged offence took place in late November last year, NtK was received a few days ago (just over the 28 day minimum). Will the generic letter of appeal work with these guys as from what I've been reading they're a bit more of a fighter. I really don't fancy heading to court, but then I don't want to just bend over for the !!!!!!!s :P

bazster

They are a real handful at the P&D car parks they own or infest where there has been under-payment, but this is clearly not one of those cases. If you had a paid-for visitor's permit I can't see how they can possibly demonstrate any loss.

I'd go the standard appeal route if I were you, but be prepared to come back here for help rebutting whatever submissions Naffier makes to PoPLA.

I'd have thought the nature of the case makes it relatively unlikely that they would want to push this to court, but there are no guarantees!

ItsJustCurtis

Dear Sirs

RE: Fixed Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXX

I challenge this Fixed Charge Notice as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

 
2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £17 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,





'ItsJustCurtis'

Just want to make sure before I print and send, this is the letter I've copied, some minor changes. Should I send this recorded/signed for to make sure they get it or just first class?

Umkomaas

ItsJustCurtis wrote: »

Just want to make sure before I print and send, this is the letter I've copied, some minor changes. Should I send this recorded/signed for to make sure they get it or just first class?

Possibly none of the above! Have a look on the NtK as to the method by which appeals are to be submitted.

If it is by Royal Mail, don't waste money on 'Signed For', just ask your Post Office for a free certificate of posting - that will suffice as a 'proof of delivery'.

One little comment! Why £17 per hour when the court rate is £18 per hour? You're selling yourself cheap mate! Or is this your offer of discount for early payment :rotfl:

ItsJustCurtis

Aha I assumed that was an hourly rate based on lost wages, £18 it is then :P The rest of the letter is fine then?

Umkomaas

Yep, get it away.

ItsJustCurtis

So they've finally got back to me, naturally they've rejected the appeal, several reasons, but basically countered every point in the default letter. They've said I can either pay the £50 or appeal via POPLA, which they obviously suggest I don't do, and attached a 'similar' case dated Feb 2014. The case is very similar, same apartment complex, same argument for appeal, though it doesn't specify the conditions of the offence, so I don't know if they had permits like I did or not.

How should I proceed?

Grimble

So it is going to cost them £27 for the appeal, wonder why they want to discourage you? It costs you nothing and with the help of the experts on here you stand a very good chance of winning.