No 'valid' permit... a little advice please.

M*A*S*H

If I submit online, would the following be enough to appeal??? (Sorry all these letters must be a drag!)

Dear Sir,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number xxxxxxx (Vehicle: XXXXXX)
Site: Bitton Court
Issue date: 05/01/2015

I am writing to appeal against the decision of Premier Parking Solutions (PPS) not to cancel a recent charge they levied on me for 'parketing without a proper permit'.

Despite strong mitigating circumstances I would like you to consider this case for the following reasons.

1. I do not believe the quoted fines they have imposed are appropriate. They claim the amount they are charging is a 'term of the contract', but it is my understanding the charge should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. I fail to see the loss incurred.

The permit, due to a lack of communcation with a resident, was a few days out of date (as evidenced in the PPS's own photographs). The parking is free to permit holders and I fail to see what loss was incurred by the land owner by having the wrong permit on display on this day. In fact I continued to park in the same space with the correct permit once the fine was issued and presumably at this point the alledged losses ceased; I am struggling to understand how these losses work.

PPS have failed to provide a breakdown of these costs to me for consideration. The BPA code of practise states, a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

Unfair Terms in the Consumer Contract Regulations indicates parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. Clearly in this case the loss is nothing.

The charge is clearly punitive rather than a genuine effort to recover losses.

2. It is not clear to me that PPS has the necessary authority to enter into a legal contract with me as the driver. PPS does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence they are lawfully entitled to do so.

PPS own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking at Bitton Court or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. At best PPS may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

The BPA code of practise implies a contract must grant the PPS the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor.

It would be important that a copy of the signed contract between the land owner and PPS is examined to ensure it holds all the necessary clauses to issue, persue (including threatening court action) and demand payments.

Please ensure PPS provides the me with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent to myself with sufficient time for consideration.

I believe all charges should be dropped against me.

Yours Faithfully
M*A*S*H

bod1467

B+ for effort, C- for content.

It's not a fine, so don't use that word at all.

You're saying it's not a contractual charge, so you need to spell out why it isn't. (Hence why PPS must show it is a genuine pre-estimate of loss).

Parketing?

See post #3 of the NEWBIES thread - lots of POPLA examples linked from there.

M*A*S*H

Thanks bod1467. I will try again, using more of the 'example texts' out there... is that any better with that part?

Dear Sir,

Re: Parking Charge Notice Number xxxxxxx (Vehicle: XXXXXX)
Site: Bitton Court
Issue date: 05/01/2015

I am writing to appeal against the decision of Premier Parking Solutions (PPS) not to cancel a recent charge they levied on me for 'parking without a proper permit'.

Despite strong mitigating circumstances I would like you to consider this case for the following reasons.

I do not believe the quoted charges they have imposed are appropriate. They claim the amount they are charging is a 'term of the contract', but it is my understanding the charge should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. I fail to see the loss incurred rather than a punitive charge..

The signage stated the charge is for 'contravening' the 'Permit Hodlers Only' condition of the warning sign. In the PPS appeal rejection letter they stated the sign, "clearly details any charges that may be imposed should these restrictions be contravened." Clearly PPS are imposing 'charges' as a penalty. PPS must prove the charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There was no loss flowing from this parking event.

PPS cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Costs such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. PPS would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had most of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

In this case the permit, due to a lack of communcation with a resident, was a few days out of date (as evidenced in the PPS's own photographs). The parking is free to permit holders and I fail to see what loss was incurred by the land owner by having the wrong permit on display on this day. In fact I continued to park in the same space with the correct permit once the charge was issued and presumably at this point the alledged losses ceased; I am struggling to understand how these losses work.

PPS have failed to provide a breakdown of these costs to me for consideration. The BPA code of practise states, a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

Unfair Terms in the Consumer Contract Regulations indicates parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. Clearly in this case the loss is nothing.

The charge is clearly punitive rather than a genuine effort to recover losses.

It is not clear to me that PPS has the necessary authority to enter into a legal contract with me as the driver. PPS does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence they are lawfully entitled to do so.

PPS own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking at Bitton Court or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. At best PPS may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent).

The BPA code of practise implies a contract must grant the PPS the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor.

It would be important that a copy of the signed contract between the land owner and PPS is examined to ensure it holds all the necessary clauses to issue, persue (including threatening court action) and demand payments.

Please ensure PPS provides the me with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent to myself with sufficient time for consideration.

I believe all charges should be dropped against me.

Yours Faithfully
M*A*S*H

Redx

sorry to say this, but I dont think you have clicked on the blue words HOW TO WIN AT POPLA in the newbies sticky thread and looked through the examples there

the reasons I say this are

no bullet points with numbered appeal points

no headers for each bullet point / appeal point

not enough appeal points , typically not a gpeol , no contract, poor signage to name but 3

so good effort as mentioned earlier, but are you sure that your appeal above matches the appeal examples linked by coupon-mad in the NEWBIES sticky thread ?

please try again and look at winning appeals for guidance (those linked in the NEWBIES sticky thread)

and forget about mitigation, this appeal is based on legal arguments

some spelling errors in there too (we all make them , especially me)

then tick all boxes except stolen, and attach your appeal as a word doc or pdf , when completed

good luck

bod1467

In fact I the vehicle continued to park in the same space with the correct permit once the charge was issued and presumably at this point the alleged losses ceased; I am struggling to understand how these losses work if there was no loss for having the correct permit then there was no loss for having a slightly out of date permit.