Appealing against Nappy-er

ItsJustCurtis

h**p://i.imgur.com/icMl6Vd.png

Thats the parking notice in the car park. I can't see anything glaringly obvious with it, it can be seen quite clearly without the flash. Not sure how I should approach POPLA other than the no demonstrable loss card?

bazster

http://i.imgur.com/icMl6Vd.png

Go and read the Newbies thread again, all the usual points apply. No loss, no standing, no contract, and on and on and on and on...

ItsJustCurtis

Thanks Bazster, I'll get an appeal written up and post it here to see what you guys think

ItsJustCurtis

I'm part way through writing, taking cues from the letter written in the thread linked earlier, though they use the no contract agreed. In paying for visitors permits, that means I have agreed to their terms and thus bound into contract right? So I can't use that one. So far, the arguments I am using are the lack off loss and I am investigating missing T&C's on the signage. Can I use the contract card?

bazster

Stick it all in, you don't get points deducted.

Annie1960

Use all of the arguments, whether or not you think they apply.

Cygnus_Alpha

ItsJustCurtis wrote: »

I'm part way through writing, taking cues from the letter written in the thread linked earlier, though they use the no contract agreed. In paying for visitors permits, that means I have agreed to their terms and thus bound into contract right? So I can't use that one. So far, the arguments I am using are the lack off loss and I am investigating missing T&C's on the signage. Can I use the contract card?

Don't forget, by saying you have not displayed a permit, they are claiming you have not paid to park there. In which case, there is no contract.

ItsJustCurtis

Well this is what I have so far. I'm not sure about the contract thing, as I have still paid, but for a different service

As registered keeper of the vehicle I have been made aware of the allegations against the driver of **** ***. I am aware that the vehicle was parked in an unallocated residents bay. The parking charge for these bays are included in the rental of all large apartments in the complex, regardless of usage. As can be seen in the photographs provided to me by Napier, the vehicle was parked in this bay using 3 paid visitors permits at a cost of £2 each, allowing a total stay of 18 hours. The evidence provided by Napier does not indicate that the vehicle overstayed the amount paid for on the visitors permits, only that the alleged offence was that an invalid permit was displayed.

Under section 19.5 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, I fail to see how any genuine pre-estimate of loss can be demonstrated, let alone come to the sum of £95, given that the space being used is already paid for, and an un-used visitor’s space had also been paid for. With this information, it is clear that Napier is likely to have in fact profited from this, rather than made a loss, thus the Parking Charge Notice is both redundant, and in breach of the CoP.

Napier have included documents about the Napier Parking v Lander case, one which is both irrelevant, and apparently used in a number of their appeal rejection letters. In said case, it is clear that Mr Lander ignored the PCN and then issued a counter claim at court which failed. Not only this his conduct was considered to be unreasonable by a Judge. That case is completely different from my appeal as keeper.
I am also aware that Napier often attempts to use the Napier Parking V Yau case. If Napier try to rely upon this then I would state that this was also unlike my case. It was a different scenario in another car park with a completely different defence. Mr Yau had parked near a sign which he had admitted seeing and he paid a tariff, so the elements of a contract did exist in that case but he failed to display his P&D ticket straight away. Although Napier have won in court before, it does not follow that they have standing to pursue me.

In any case, I have exercised my perceived right to cancel the contract whatever the outcome of this POPLA appeal but would be pleased to hear from POPLA that my appeal is upheld first.

ItsJustCurtis

Is this enough to have a solid argument for POPLA? or is there additional info I should include?

ItsJustCurtis

As registered keeper of the vehicle I have been made aware of the allegations against the driver of **** ***. I am aware that the vehicle was parked in an unallocated residents’ bay. The parking charge for these bays are included in the rental of all large apartments in the complex, regardless of usage. As can be seen in the photographs provided to me by Napier, the vehicle was parked in this bay using 3 paid visitor’s permits at a cost of £2 each, allowing a total stay of 18 hours. The evidence provided by Napier does not indicate that the vehicle overstayed the amount paid for on the visitor’s permits; only that the alleged offence was that an invalid permit was displayed.

Under section 19.5 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice1, I fail to see how any genuine pre-estimate of loss can be demonstrated, let alone come to the sum of £95, given that the space being used is already paid for, and an un-used visitor’s space had also been paid for. With this information, it is clear that Napier is likely to have in fact profited from this, rather than made a loss, thus the Parking Charge Notice is both redundant, and in breach of the CoP.

Following this, I formally rejected the ‘contract’ provided by Napier on the basis that there was no consideration flowing from both the driver and Napier and no express agreement of terms. Their parking notices state that ‘full terms and conditions of parking are prominently displayed at the entrance to the estate’. I found this not to be the case, there is no clear signage regarding the contract, thus breaching the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013. Moreover, as stated previously, Napier claim that the payment for the permits displayed by the driver is not valid, and therefore, no monetary exchange took place, thereby negating any contractual agreement between the driver and Napier.

Napier have included documents about the Napier Parking v Lander case, one which is both irrelevant, and apparently used in a number of their appeal rejection letters. In said case, it is clear that Mr Lander ignored the PCN and then issued a counter claim at court which failed. Not only this, a Judge considered his conduct was unreasonable. That case is completely different from my appeal as keeper.
I am also aware that Napier often attempts to use the Napier Parking V Yau case. If Napier try to rely upon this then I would state that this was also unlike my case. It was a different scenario in another car park with a completely different defence. Mr Yau had parked near a sign which he had admitted seeing and he paid a tariff, so the elements of a contract did exist in that case but he failed to display his P&D ticket straight away. Although Napier have won in court before, it does not follow that they have standing to pursue me.

In any case, I have exercised my perceived right to cancel the contract whatever the outcome of this POPLA appeal but would be pleased to hear from POPLA that my appeal is upheld first.

For reference, I have attached the images that Napier provided to me of both my vehicle, where the driver had parked and the 3 visitors permits.


1 “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 based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance.”

Added a short section about the contract. Just submitted to POPLA now, shall update with results