We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PPS - POPLA Appeal
DevonChap
Posts: 15 Forumite
Hi Everyone
I have a Parking Charge Notice from
PPS - Premier Parking Solutions Ltd - based in Newton Abbott
(Valley Enforcement is a Trading Name of Premier Parking Solutions)
The driver
parked in an Exeter Carpark, misread the sign and paid up until what they thought was the end of the charge period (8pm) Unfortunately it would appear that there was a second charge payable between 8pm and 8am that they had not seen on the charge board.
There is a penalty charge of £100
An appeal to PPS was made, which was unsuccessful, and now I intend to appeal to POPLA - I have been given the code
I believe there are 2 main grounds for appeal + 2 from the templates
1) The charge of £100 is unfair - The fee for the overnight charge was £4. This was offered to PPS in the appeal, but ignored.
The T&C's imply that this is a contractual charge
2) The carpark is badly lit - There is one light that overhangs the wall from the streetlight - but there is no direct lighting to the pay and display sign - The machine itself is very difficult to read.
The entrance sign is very limited - There is a notice on the back of the pay and display machine - But it is very cluttered, and not what I would say complied to the "Entrance sign" in the BPS guidelines - Its also on the opposite side of the road to the entrance, as you drive in.
Anyway - I have drafted the following, from a few of the examples seen here.
Is there anything else that I should add?
Thanks for you help
DevonChap
xxth January 2014
POPLA verification code xxxxx
Dear POPLA Assessor,
My appeal as registered keeper of the vehicle, comprises these four points:
1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. And if they say there was a GPEOL then I require them to prove it was prior to the parking event and that their stated heads of cost were in their reasonable contemplation at the time of issue of the PCN.
2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.
3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.
4. The signage formed no contract with the driver as the terms are unlit, unreadable in the dark.
These points are explained below:
1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. PPS' stated intentions to POPLA earlier this year were that the charges making up their PCNs at all car parks, were designed to be a contractual 'fee'. But then they lost cases at POPLA so have changed their minds after the event.
If PPS say the charge is in fact for 'breach' after all, then I put them to strict proof that there ever was a prior meeting to establish a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. Merely showing a fresh set of calculations now, does not prove this 'GPEOL' was established before the alleged parking event. In fact a lack of such proof will show their calculations are a 'post' estimate, per case, which is not allowable.
If PPS provides an 'evidence pack' I will need time to rebut it of course, but for the moment I say this:
- As a registered keeper, I am not liable to pay the full hourly wages & NI contributions of PPS staff! These are tax-deductible costs of running a business, salaries which would be paid anyway. These full staffing costs cannot possibly directly flow from one alleged breach for a case which (unusually) happens to have now followed the POPLA route. Further, their salary includes time for training and also holiday pay and other elements within the hourly rate which I cannot possibly be liable to pay. Clerical staff 'working' for any parking operator while they look for a proper job, are expected to handle appeals as part of their usual core activities, so they are not significantly diverted at all. They are positively engaged in their normal salaried work whether sending out permits, communicating with landowner clients or dealing with appeals. So, there is no loss of staff time, as was found in 'A Retailer v Ms B' (a case focussing on whether there was any reclaimable loss) where Judge Charles Harris QC stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgement, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’
- PPS Managers do not spend 'hours' on each POPLA case - any competent clerical staff member could put their 'evidence packs' together as they are in the main, generic. There are too many layers of checks by higher paid staff to meet the requirement to be 'genuine' as a pre-estimate. If the manages of PPS do spend time checking the work of others then this falls within her normal activities as a Manager, in terms of quality control and Management checks, she is not diverted from her salaried job and so this is not claimable as a 'loss'.
- POPLA related 'work' cannot apply to each PCN anyway, as a 'genuine pre-estimate', because only approximately 1% of cases ever get to POPLA stage. The best that an Operator could factor in for POPLA work would be 1% of the time taken, which would be well under a pound.
- Since the vast majority will never to go to POPLA, this situation is comparable to cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs (in fact the debt collection route is far more likely than POPLA). As a matter of policy, POPLA Assessors routinely dismiss 'debt collection stage' heads of cost, on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable/too remote'. The same applies to 'POPLA costs', as was found by Nadesh Karunairetnam in ref 4212674003 in November 2014:
'... the cost of bringing the case to POPLA is too remote - it would not be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator. Consequently, the revised pre-estimate, absent of the costs which cannot be taken into account, stands at substantially lower than the parking charge. Therefore, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. '
- If the driver had paid between day 14 and day 28 then the full cost of the PCN would have applied. How do PPS justify this charge issued to all drivers, if the calculation includes POPLA 'work and checks' which never actually occur in 99% of cases? These POPLA costs which are very rare, cannot have been in the reasonable contemplation of PPS at the time of issuing an average PCN.
Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."
This inflated charge is not enforceable according to the words of Mr Greenslade and it is trite law that a charge for breach cannot be punitive and can only put the claimant back in the position they would have been in if no breach had occurred (incidentally no breach is admitted anyway).
2. The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is not properly given under the POFA 2012. The NTK does not tell me as keeper how much of the tariff allegedly remains unpaid for what length of parking period.
In addition, the Notice contains misleading wording which not only states a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist but also breaches the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14: 'Misrepresentation of authority':
3. I require PPS to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. If they merely show a statement from a managing agent I require proof that the 'agent' has the authority from the actual landowner to grant a third party contract for parking management for breaches.
I believe PPS have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I believe they are merely a commercial agent for the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing. A PPS 'witness statement' would not refute this appeal point, since the following issues would be hidden:
- whether the contract allows for a contractual fee model
- whether this contravention is actually stated in the contract
- whether PPS are an agent and when the contract expires/renews
- the site boundary and scope of the operation
- what the charges are for each alleged contravention
- any 'revenue sharing' which must be reflected in the calculations
To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either! If a witness statement is produced then I will be rebutting it.
4. Terms on a notice are not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of the terms and agreed to them in their entirety. At this site, the signage formed no contract with the driver as the terms are completely unreadable in the dark. Such as they are, the warning signs are placed high up, are unlit, so that in darkness no signs are visible and the words (on an unreflective background) are certainly unreadable.
There is no entrance sign that complies to the BPA standard. Any sign that the driver may have passed is certainly not prominent, not reflective and was placed too high to be lit by headlights.
The carpark has no additional lighting, the only light coming from the streetlights of the public street. As such there is no direct light to the Pay and Display charge board, which is unclear in the dark.
The driver tried to read the sign and understood that the charges applied until 8PM. The driver purchased, and displayed a ticket for this period.
When the driver parked the car at approximately 7PM they witnessed a parking attendant inspecting parked cars. The parking attendant was using a torch to inspect the tickets of cars as the carpark has no additional lighting.
The photographs provided by PPS of the parked vehicle also provide evidence that the carpark is unlit.
PPS have provided no evidence that their signage complies to the BPS guidelines, although in my appeal to them on these grounds said “The signage is in excess of industry guidelines” I refute this statement.
So PPS must show a site map and, in addition, photos in darkness taken without a camera flash.
The fact is that if the words are not clear in the hours of darkness then no contract was capable of being formed. The signs breach the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders signs unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit...should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads''.
There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed to and from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not 'customers' of PPS and not expecting to read a contract when they arrive at night and see no clear signs at all. I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'
The signs are certainly not 'startling' and so there was no contract established.
This concludes my appeal.
Yours sincerely,
I have a Parking Charge Notice from
PPS - Premier Parking Solutions Ltd - based in Newton Abbott
(Valley Enforcement is a Trading Name of Premier Parking Solutions)
The driver
parked in an Exeter Carpark, misread the sign and paid up until what they thought was the end of the charge period (8pm) Unfortunately it would appear that there was a second charge payable between 8pm and 8am that they had not seen on the charge board.There is a penalty charge of £100
An appeal to PPS was made, which was unsuccessful, and now I intend to appeal to POPLA - I have been given the code
I believe there are 2 main grounds for appeal + 2 from the templates
1) The charge of £100 is unfair - The fee for the overnight charge was £4. This was offered to PPS in the appeal, but ignored.
The T&C's imply that this is a contractual charge
2) The carpark is badly lit - There is one light that overhangs the wall from the streetlight - but there is no direct lighting to the pay and display sign - The machine itself is very difficult to read.
The entrance sign is very limited - There is a notice on the back of the pay and display machine - But it is very cluttered, and not what I would say complied to the "Entrance sign" in the BPS guidelines - Its also on the opposite side of the road to the entrance, as you drive in.
Anyway - I have drafted the following, from a few of the examples seen here.
Is there anything else that I should add?
Thanks for you help
DevonChap
xxth January 2014
POPLA verification code xxxxx
Dear POPLA Assessor,
My appeal as registered keeper of the vehicle, comprises these four points:
1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. And if they say there was a GPEOL then I require them to prove it was prior to the parking event and that their stated heads of cost were in their reasonable contemplation at the time of issue of the PCN.
2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.
3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.
4. The signage formed no contract with the driver as the terms are unlit, unreadable in the dark.
These points are explained below:
1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. PPS' stated intentions to POPLA earlier this year were that the charges making up their PCNs at all car parks, were designed to be a contractual 'fee'. But then they lost cases at POPLA so have changed their minds after the event.
If PPS say the charge is in fact for 'breach' after all, then I put them to strict proof that there ever was a prior meeting to establish a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'. Merely showing a fresh set of calculations now, does not prove this 'GPEOL' was established before the alleged parking event. In fact a lack of such proof will show their calculations are a 'post' estimate, per case, which is not allowable.
If PPS provides an 'evidence pack' I will need time to rebut it of course, but for the moment I say this:
- As a registered keeper, I am not liable to pay the full hourly wages & NI contributions of PPS staff! These are tax-deductible costs of running a business, salaries which would be paid anyway. These full staffing costs cannot possibly directly flow from one alleged breach for a case which (unusually) happens to have now followed the POPLA route. Further, their salary includes time for training and also holiday pay and other elements within the hourly rate which I cannot possibly be liable to pay. Clerical staff 'working' for any parking operator while they look for a proper job, are expected to handle appeals as part of their usual core activities, so they are not significantly diverted at all. They are positively engaged in their normal salaried work whether sending out permits, communicating with landowner clients or dealing with appeals. So, there is no loss of staff time, as was found in 'A Retailer v Ms B' (a case focussing on whether there was any reclaimable loss) where Judge Charles Harris QC stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgement, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’
- PPS Managers do not spend 'hours' on each POPLA case - any competent clerical staff member could put their 'evidence packs' together as they are in the main, generic. There are too many layers of checks by higher paid staff to meet the requirement to be 'genuine' as a pre-estimate. If the manages of PPS do spend time checking the work of others then this falls within her normal activities as a Manager, in terms of quality control and Management checks, she is not diverted from her salaried job and so this is not claimable as a 'loss'.
- POPLA related 'work' cannot apply to each PCN anyway, as a 'genuine pre-estimate', because only approximately 1% of cases ever get to POPLA stage. The best that an Operator could factor in for POPLA work would be 1% of the time taken, which would be well under a pound.
- Since the vast majority will never to go to POPLA, this situation is comparable to cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs (in fact the debt collection route is far more likely than POPLA). As a matter of policy, POPLA Assessors routinely dismiss 'debt collection stage' heads of cost, on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable/too remote'. The same applies to 'POPLA costs', as was found by Nadesh Karunairetnam in ref 4212674003 in November 2014:
'... the cost of bringing the case to POPLA is too remote - it would not be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the parking contract was formed between the motorist and the operator. Consequently, the revised pre-estimate, absent of the costs which cannot be taken into account, stands at substantially lower than the parking charge. Therefore, I must find that the operator has failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. '
- If the driver had paid between day 14 and day 28 then the full cost of the PCN would have applied. How do PPS justify this charge issued to all drivers, if the calculation includes POPLA 'work and checks' which never actually occur in 99% of cases? These POPLA costs which are very rare, cannot have been in the reasonable contemplation of PPS at the time of issuing an average PCN.
Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."
This inflated charge is not enforceable according to the words of Mr Greenslade and it is trite law that a charge for breach cannot be punitive and can only put the claimant back in the position they would have been in if no breach had occurred (incidentally no breach is admitted anyway).
2. The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is not properly given under the POFA 2012. The NTK does not tell me as keeper how much of the tariff allegedly remains unpaid for what length of parking period.
In addition, the Notice contains misleading wording which not only states a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist but also breaches the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14: 'Misrepresentation of authority':
3. I require PPS to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. If they merely show a statement from a managing agent I require proof that the 'agent' has the authority from the actual landowner to grant a third party contract for parking management for breaches.
I believe PPS have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I believe they are merely a commercial agent for the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing. A PPS 'witness statement' would not refute this appeal point, since the following issues would be hidden:
- whether the contract allows for a contractual fee model
- whether this contravention is actually stated in the contract
- whether PPS are an agent and when the contract expires/renews
- the site boundary and scope of the operation
- what the charges are for each alleged contravention
- any 'revenue sharing' which must be reflected in the calculations
To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either! If a witness statement is produced then I will be rebutting it.
4. Terms on a notice are not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of the terms and agreed to them in their entirety. At this site, the signage formed no contract with the driver as the terms are completely unreadable in the dark. Such as they are, the warning signs are placed high up, are unlit, so that in darkness no signs are visible and the words (on an unreflective background) are certainly unreadable.
There is no entrance sign that complies to the BPA standard. Any sign that the driver may have passed is certainly not prominent, not reflective and was placed too high to be lit by headlights.
The carpark has no additional lighting, the only light coming from the streetlights of the public street. As such there is no direct light to the Pay and Display charge board, which is unclear in the dark.
The driver tried to read the sign and understood that the charges applied until 8PM. The driver purchased, and displayed a ticket for this period.
When the driver parked the car at approximately 7PM they witnessed a parking attendant inspecting parked cars. The parking attendant was using a torch to inspect the tickets of cars as the carpark has no additional lighting.
The photographs provided by PPS of the parked vehicle also provide evidence that the carpark is unlit.
PPS have provided no evidence that their signage complies to the BPS guidelines, although in my appeal to them on these grounds said “The signage is in excess of industry guidelines” I refute this statement.
So PPS must show a site map and, in addition, photos in darkness taken without a camera flash.
The fact is that if the words are not clear in the hours of darkness then no contract was capable of being formed. The signs breach the BPA CoP Appendix B which effectively renders signs unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ''Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness...when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved...by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit...should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads''.
There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed to and from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not 'customers' of PPS and not expecting to read a contract when they arrive at night and see no clear signs at all. I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'
The signs are certainly not 'startling' and so there was no contract established.
This concludes my appeal.
Yours sincerely,
0
Comments
-
Looks OK except it says 'earlier this year' near the top and now it's 2015 that needs changing to 'in 2014'.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
DevonChap - I too received a PPS parking charge in Exeter recently which I intend to appeal. Can you share with me the location of the car park where you received your charge?0
-
Hi
I have just received a LBA from a parking ticket received back in 2014.
The car park was dark, and the signs were not lit, relying on the street lights from the road behind the signs.
The driver paid until 8pm - believing this was when the charge period ended.
There was a night-time period after 8PM that the driver had not seen on the signs (due to the poor signage and lack of light - it was also raining)
On their return they found the Parking charge notice.
Reading the sign in daylight they found that there was a £4 for the evening period.
They accept that they owe £4, and made that offer to the parking operator the day after the parking charge notice was received.
The parking operator did not accept this and the claim has been through all the usual hoops of Popla, Wright Hasssle, debt collectors, and now to BW legal
The current balance claimed is now £160 including "Debt recovery costs" which they say are expressed in the terms and conditions - which they are not!
The driver maintains that the signage was poor and the contract was not entered into. They are willing to pay the £4 for the evening period.
The "Reply Form" that was provided gives the option to select
"I owe some of the debt, but not all of it"
Should that be completed stating the reasons why only £4 of the claim is owed? and a cheque for £4 enclosed?
The proposed response to the letter of claim is below.
Any advice very welcome!
Regards
DevonChap
BW Legal
Enterprise House
Apex View
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS11 9BH
xxxxx
Your Ref:xxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of xxxxx.
I have made an offer in writing to PPS on xxxxx 2014 in settlement of this matter. I am enclosing this as full and final payment in respect to this amount owed.
If PPS persist with the claim I do not believe is enforceable.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.
Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.
I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed, and details of the lighting of the signage)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully0 -
Although you are right to respond to the lbcca don't complete and return their forms
Responding to a lbcca is covered in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum (#2)0 -
Thanks - I have read and followed the Newbies advice so far, including post #2
I will of course send the letter in response to their LBC - why the advice not to complete their form?
The driver is willing to pay the £4, which they accept should have been paid (if the signs could have been seen correctly). Should this be included with the response to the LBC.
Regards0 -
Why are you asking the Claimant to send you a Reply Form?
I thought you already had that.
Every template letter you send needs checking beforehand and appropriate changes made.0 -
I would be very worried about offering any payment as that seems to be an admission of guilt.0
-
I submitted my response to their LBA - After reviewing the details they had provided in the LBA, these are the details I asked for:-
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
5. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
6. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”;
7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed, and full details of the lighting used with respect to each sign)
I have now received their response - Note that their numbering doesn't match up, because they seem to have accidentally missed point 3!
1. Our clients cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by overstaying the time of the Pay & Display ticket
2. Our client is pursuing you as the registered keeper of the vehicle
3. Our client does intend to rely on schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
4. This is not a claim for trespass.
5. Please be aware that the contract between Our Client and the landowner is a legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence.
6. Our client has no obligation to supply this.
7. As established members of the Independent Parking Community, Our Client adheres to their code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks ('Code of Practice'). This Code of Practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Park. The signs within the car park comply with the recommendations in the Code of Practice and are therefore deemed reasonable.
So - Firstly, they "Forgot" to answer point 4 - I am assuming that they are claiming for a contractual breach. They have failed to send me a copy of the contract that they claim was entered into.
I have photographs of the various signs on display, and not that the "contractual agreement" is different on different signs! - Some have 11 points - some have 14 points! The one with 14 points is posted on the back of the ticket machine!
Secondly - There was no lighting of any of the signs in the carpark - only from the adjacent streetlights, which were behind the signs -
At the time of the incident - back in 2014, PPS were members of BPA, and I believe the signage fell well short of the BPA requirements at that time - This was outlined in my POPLA appeal, but ignored by Wright Hassle.
PPS's accreditation with IPC started in March 2016
I will respond to their letter - Should I continue with the:-
"Your letter contains insufficient detail of the additional claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon."
Asking again for a copy of the contract, and details of the signage, and lighting. Finishing with:-
"Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided."
As you can imagine this is causing myself and the family stress and hours of water time defending an unjust claim.
Thanks for your help - as always.0 -
I wouldn't bother replying a second time.
Make a note of their failures for mention at court if it gets there and wait patiently for any Claim Form that might arrive.
That should save you a bit of 'water time'. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards