uk parking limited / pay my PCN - no observation times

ampersand

AGAIN, BM - NAME REMOVAL #1 AND #7[we know you can't do anything about the quoted post]
It has been multiply mentioned, Bod...:-)
#
Also, it's NOT a fine! bm - that really is a Naughty Step penalty.
'[STRIKE]I do not believe that the £60 fine demonstrates an estimate of likely losses. '[/STRIKE]
No losses incurred via parking events are EVER 'likely', full-stop!

ampersand

Finetuning example: - just start straight in.

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The driver of the car paid for a ticket.
A parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable.
Heads of cost such as normal operational costs, uniforms, stationery and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals [when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA etc], cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event.
The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.
#
'UK Parking Ltd's lack of title or assigned interest in this land'
Careful, do you know this for sure?

Turn it on its head:
2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

I put UK Parking Ltd to strict proof of title or any assigned interest in this land which means they have legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.

Any such documentary proof or copy must be unredacted and not a mere 'witness statement'. It will not be sufficient for them to claim 'commercial sensitivity' or use styles of document, previously rejected by POPLA and Courts, to fit this unenforceable charge. UK Parking Ltd must demonstrate that they have full legal status at that site...etc.etc.

3. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.
Be specific about divergence between requirements and what was on site that day. Night or day? Weather? Obviously pay and display, but any other signage? Position? Height?
Can you take a pic or google an identical one?
#
That's enough to be going on with.

Buttermilk181

ampersand wrote: »

Finetuning example: - just start straight in.

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The driver of the car paid for a ticket.
A parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable.
Heads of cost such as normal operational costs, uniforms, stationery and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals [when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA etc], cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event.
The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.
#
'UK Parking Ltd's lack of title or assigned interest in this land'
Careful, do you know this for sure?

Turn it on its head:
2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

I put UK Parking Ltd to strict proof of title or any assigned interest in this land which means they have legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.

Any such documentary proof or copy must be unredacted and not a mere 'witness statement'. It will not be sufficient for them to claim 'commercial sensitivity' or use styles of document, previously rejected by POPLA and Courts, to fit this unenforceable charge. UK Parking Ltd must demonstrate that they have full legal status at that site...etc.etc.

3. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.
Be specific about divergence between requirements and what was on site that day. Night or day? Weather? Obviously pay and display, but any other signage? Position? Height?
Can you take a pic or google an identical one?
#
That's enough to be going on with.

Hello,

Name removed from posts #1 and #7.

Please see amendments below, in 1) the word fine changed to invoice, is this term a better term for me to use?

In 2) I rearranged as you suggested.

For 3) I went at night, was dark from when I arrived to when I left, the sign upon entering the carpark is just a blue pay and display sign. I think the terms were near the machines I paid at. I cannot find the sign online unfortunately.

To be honest point 3 may not actually be specifically relevant to me. It was used in another appeal to the same company that was linked on this thread.

If I do not actually have a specific problem with the signage shall I not use this point? I was under the impression it was more of a general point to be used in most POPLA letters.

Amended letter below:

POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx
As registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by UK Parking Ltd.
The appeal is based on the following grounds:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

To expand on these points:

1) The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:
I do not believe that the £60 invoice demonstrates an estimate of likely losses. The driver of the car paid for a ticket, and merely overstayed by a matter of minutes. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable.
Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
I put UK Parking Ltd to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor.
I require UK Parking Ltd to produce a full unredacted copy of their agreement with the landowner to confirm (or otherwise) that they have the necessary legal standing to offer parking and pursue charges in their own name. A Witness Statement will not be sufficient.
The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

3) Due to the position of signage, the lack of signage frequency and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs and any core parking terms UK Parking Ltd are relying upon were too small for a driver to read – particularly at night. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts (not implied consent) and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance. Based on the signage in this car park, UK Parking Ltd has failed to meet these requirements. I request that POPLA check UK Parking Ltd evidence and signage positions/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, frequency, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]).
There is no contract between UK Parking Ltd and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc., were not satisfied.

Signed XXXXXXXXX

Redx

we dont care what you think about the signage, the signage rarely conforms to the BPA CoP , but popla wont consider it if you dont query it

so query everything , accept nothing, make the PPC prove their case, all of it

one person on here recently won against PE on signage IN COURT , so it makes no difference what YOU think about it, the general rule is if it isnt in your face and crystal clear, its gibberish or non-existent

say its cr*p, then let popla decide if it is or not

ampersand

POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx

As registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by UK Parking Ltd on the following grounds:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

To expand on these points:

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:

I do not believe that an unenforceable £60 invoice demonstrates an estimate of likely losses.

The driver of the car paid for a ticket, but allegedly overstayed by 4 minutes, although this can be disputed, given that no times for arrival or departure were entered on the windscreen ticket.

No grace period was accorded, as per BPA guidance:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

The alleged parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged 4-minute breach in order to be potentially enforceable in this case.

Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event.

The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

I put UK Parking Ltd to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor.

Further, I require UK Parking Ltd to produce a full contemporaneous, unredacted copy of their agreement with the landowner to confirm (or otherwise) that they had the necessary legal standing to offer parking and pursue charges in their own name at the time of the alleged parking event.

A Witness Statement will not be sufficient.

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

3. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.

The alleged parking event took place at night in winter: the weather was windy and wet.

Due to the position of signage, the lack of signage frequency and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs and any core parking terms UK Parking Ltd are relying upon are too small for a driver to read and well nigh illegible at night.

The appellant paid for parking, complied with such terms as could be discerned in the conditions.

It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts (not implied consent) and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

Based on the signage in this car park, UK Parking Ltd has failed to meet these requirements.
I request that POPLA check UK Parking Ltd evidence and signage positions/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, frequency, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]).

There is no contract between UK Parking Ltd and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it would be unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc., were not satisfied.

Yours faithfully,

Signed XXXXXXXXX
#
You want to make the assessor your friend. Help him or her with clarity, setting out, good grammar and spelling. It does matter. Note word change to 'would be' from 'is' in final para./unfair contract section.

ampersand

Check out the signage section here:
http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=3155.0
#
Use this[thankyou parky]
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/signage_requirements_for_parking

Buttermilk181

ampersand wrote: »

POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx

As registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by UK Parking Ltd on the following grounds:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

To expand on these points:

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:

I do not believe that an unenforceable £60 invoice demonstrates an estimate of likely losses.

The driver of the car paid for a ticket, but allegedly overstayed by 4 minutes, although this can be disputed, given that no times for arrival or departure were entered on the windscreen ticket.

No grace period was accorded, as per BPA guidance:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

The alleged parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged 4-minute breach in order to be potentially enforceable in this case.

Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event.

The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

I put UK Parking Ltd to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor.

Further, I require UK Parking Ltd to produce a full contemporaneous, unredacted copy of their agreement with the landowner to confirm (or otherwise) that they had the necessary legal standing to offer parking and pursue charges in their own name at the time of the alleged parking event.

A Witness Statement will not be sufficient.

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

3. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.

The alleged parking event took place at night in winter: the weather was windy and wet.

Due to the position of signage, the lack of signage frequency and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs and any core parking terms UK Parking Ltd are relying upon are too small for a driver to read and well nigh illegible at night.

The appellant paid for parking, complied with such terms as could be discerned in the conditions.

It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts (not implied consent) and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

Based on the signage in this car park, UK Parking Ltd has failed to meet these requirements.
I request that POPLA check UK Parking Ltd evidence and signage positions/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, frequency, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]).

There is no contract between UK Parking Ltd and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it would be unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc., were not satisfied.

Yours faithfully,

Signed XXXXXXXXX
#
You want to make the assessor your friend. Help him or her with clarity, setting out, good grammar and spelling. It does matter. Note word change to 'would be' from 'is' in final para./unfair contract section.

Thanks for those changes, your letter writing ability is much better than mine. :T

Making it clear for the assessor makes perfect sense.

Would you consider this letter ready for sending? I think I should get the ball rolling and submit online to POPLA.

Thanks,

ampersand

It doesn't matter who does it, buttermilk - and playing with words is my cheap trick.
I'm not 6' tall, so lovely fellas reach things down in whichever Emporium.
Can't be in the scrum heaving my AB's over the line either.
#
Just glue in a bit from the signage extras, #47, after 'illegible at night.' then we'll have a final squizz before you hit that send button.

Buttermilk181

ampersand wrote: »

It doesn't matter who does it, buttermilk - and playing with words is my cheap trick.
I'm not 6' tall, so lovely fellas reach things down in whichever Emporium.
Can't be in the scrum heaving my AB's over the line either.
#
Just glue in a bit from the signage extras, #47, after 'illegible at night.' then we'll have a final squizz before you hit that send button.

Please see below the amended version with additional signage details. All amendments are in section 3. The part I copied from the link states full T&C's should be shown at the entrance of the car park. Do you know the validity behind this? As I have checked via street view and there is merely a blue Pay and display kind of sign.


________________________________________________________
POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx

As registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by UK Parking Ltd on the following grounds:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

To expand on these points:

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:

I do not believe that an unenforceable £60 invoice demonstrates an estimate of likely losses.

The driver of the car paid for a ticket, but allegedly overstayed by 4 minutes, although this can be disputed, given that no times for arrival or departure were entered on the windscreen ticket.

No grace period was accorded, as per BPA guidance:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News...-grace-periods
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

The alleged parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged 4-minute breach in order to be potentially enforceable in this case.

Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event.

The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

2. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

I put UK Parking Ltd to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges in the courts in their own name as creditor.

Further, I require UK Parking Ltd to produce a full contemporaneous, unredacted copy of their agreement with the landowner to confirm (or otherwise) that they had the necessary legal standing to offer parking and pursue charges in their own name at the time of the alleged parking event.

A Witness Statement will not be sufficient.

The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contains the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

3. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.

The alleged parking event took place at night in winter: the weather was windy and wet.

Due to the position of signage, the lack of signage frequency, the barely legible size of the small print and minimal lighting the signs and any core parking terms UK Parking Ltd are relying upon are too small for a driver to read and well nigh illegible at night.

The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height and lighting of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

The appellant paid for parking, complied with such terms as could be discerned in the conditions.

It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts (not implied consent) and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

Based on the signage in this car park, UK Parking Ltd has failed to meet these requirements.
I request that POPLA check UK Parking Ltd evidence and signage positions/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, frequency, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2]).

There is no contract between UK Parking Ltd and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it would be unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc., were not satisfied.

Yours faithfully,

Signed XXXXXXXXX

Buttermilk181

ampersand wrote: »

It doesn't matter who does it, buttermilk - and playing with words is my cheap trick.
I'm not 6' tall, so lovely fellas reach things down in whichever Emporium.
Can't be in the scrum heaving my AB's over the line either.
#
Just glue in a bit from the signage extras, #47, after 'illegible at night.' then we'll have a final squizz before you hit that send button.

Might I add that playing with words, at least in our society, is certainly not a cheap trick (although it can be used as one).