Private Parking Charges - VINCI

privateparkingchanges

On the 8th November 2014 Vinci Park Car Park Services UK Ltd gave me a ticket for parking on private land. I should not have parked there. The price of the ticket (which is not a fine!) is £100. I waited for the Notice to Keeper to come through, this arrived dated 15th December 2014. My dispute letter was sent 2nd January 2015. Vinci rejected my dispute on 20th January 2015 saying I did not appeal within 28 days and it’s now with a debt recovery agent. I disputed in just 18 days from NTK.

As I had disputed within my 28 days from letter to keeper I contacted the BPA. During the month a half I waited for the BPA to sort this out my company received many harassing letters from debt recovery agents ZZPS (as the offence was in my company car).

BPA replied saying I did appeal with 28 days, they have raised this with the operator, the operator have now sent a formal response. The operator has rejected your appeal you must now go to POPLA. You have 28 days from date of letter to do so. Please see operator response attached. I can see the Operators response (sent today) is dated over 20 days ago, I now have a handful of days remaining.

I’m annoyed Vinci have already breached their code of practice yet they are still going for the ticket. I will appeal to POPLA today now that I have my code. Finally!


I think my best chance for appeal is “No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss”, but I will include as many valid points as I can without just throwing everything at them. I’ve read lots of information on various threads and parking cowboy’s site. I am yet to find the perfect template letter on the how to win POPLA thread or elsewhere.


Can anyone recommend a template for this situation? Shall I mention the unlawful harassment from debt recovery agent?

Thanks in advanced

Ralph-y

have a look through this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

#3 I think ........

pick a template and modify it to your requirements.

You can post it up here to be checked if you wish .....

TBH you will be wasting your time complaining about the debt crawlers ...

Ralph:cool:

Redx

also complain back to the BPA (steve clark) that the PPC has not given you the full 28 days for the popla appeal, give him the popla code so he can check it and hopefully they will be sanctioned twice plus he may give you leave to extend the deadline (or have a new popla code issued)

also include the paperwork from the debt collectors as thats against BPA rules roo

meanwhile , just sort through the links from post #3 of the newbies thread for a reasonable popla appeal

you can also put search words like vinci popla appeal etc into the forum search box to see if you can find ones similar or on the same car park

parkingnuts

They did exactly the same with me. Notice to keeper sent late!!! Then pursued by ZZPS while still in appeal time. Refused a POPLA code. Then a solicitor's letter even though BPA appeal still on-going.

Vinci have employed the services of PCN Admin and ZZPS - look at the history of the people involved in these organisations and you will find out what they are.

Castle

You should phone POPLA direct and request an extension to your 28 days deadline due to the late arrival of your POPLA code.

privateparkingchanges

If I put my case into POPLA today do I need that extension?

1. How should I extend it? Contact POPLA and BPA?
2. Shall I proceed with my case on current code regardless?

Castle

You have 28 days to appeal to POPLA from the day you receive the code. If you need more time, then contact POPLA and explain that your code arrived 20 days late. Don't waste time with the BPA because they won't help you.

Redx

you contact the BPA in order to report all the breaches, not for help

you should still deal with the popla code expiry date as a valid date UNLESS popla or the BPA give you the extension. it is paramount that you do not miss this deadline , nothing else is as time critical

so you do all I said, which is why I said it

privateparkingchanges

Ralph-y wrote: »

You can post it up here to be checked if you wish .....

Ralph:cool:

I have put together the below from various templates, hoping it fits the bill of my situation.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated guys.

---

[FONT=&quot]Re:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Vinci Park Services UK Ltd[/FONT][FONT=&quot], [/FONT][FONT=&quot]PCN No. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

xx/xx/xxxx

POPLA Code: xxxxxxxxx[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

VRN: xxxxxxx

I am the keeper of this vehicle and this is my appeal.

On the above date, the quoted Parking Charge Notice was issued quoting “Failing to fully display valid permit”. This charge has been contested directly with Vinci Park Services with the allowed 28 days to notice to keeper and rejected, Vinci Park Services claimed the appeal was outside of the allowed 28 days. The case was forwarded to a debt collection agency. The BPA corrected the matter and provided me with a valid POPLA code. I include copies of all correspondents from all parties attached.

I contest the charge and request it is dismissed on the following grounds:

1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss

2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CP Plus have formed no contract with the driver[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot](lack of signage, no consideration/acceptance)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

3. Lack of standing/authority from landowner to issue tickets or pursue charges in their own name at court

4. Unfair terms


1) NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could possibly have been suffered by the Landowner or the Operator.

Vinci Park Services must therefore be required to explain their charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so Vinci Park Services have no cause of action to pursue this charge.

I specified in my original appeal that I would like to see a breakdown of the costs incurred by Vinci Park Services as a result of the alleged breach. Vinci Park Services have failed to provide this information, stating that the charge is in line with BPA guidelines and therefore “deemed reasonable”. This reply completely fails to demonstrate that the whole charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge can “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

I put it to Vinci Park Services to prove that a loss has occurred at the time that this charge was levied and Vinci Park Services submit a breakdown of how this sum was calculated prior to the parking event, as being capable of directly flowing from a minor alleged breach, such that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Considering the alleged offence took place outside of usual business hours for Acorn House, the damages suffered would not equate to the sum of £100.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I find that the operator has not provided evidence of an initial loss, which is a loss incurred prior to enforcement action being taken, such as the loss of the parking fee in the case of a pay and display car park where no ticket was purchased.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The parking charge must be an estimate of reasonable losses in order to be enforceable. Accordingly, any consequential loss must be based on an initial loss, and any heads claimed for must be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of issue of the parking charge notice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Once such a loss is shown, actual losses flowing from it may be claimed, but without such a loss that is not the case. Whilst the losses stated by the operator may well flow from a breach, an initial loss must be shown in order to claim costs in respect of them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As an initial loss must be shown in order for a charge to constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator has failed to show that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore I feel the charge notice is invalid.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]CPP have no contract with the driver of the vehicle; no consideration nor acceptance has flowed between the parties so the elements of a contract do not exist. The issue of a staff parking permit and parking privileges is strictly between the employer and staff member and is the only extant contract relating to parking this car on this site by this driver. Despite what they may say, CPP cannot re-offer the same parking space on different terms and allege a charge is due when there has been no loss suffered and the driver is permitted to park there. CPP signs in this car park are sparse and unclear, to the extent that they are incapable of forming a contract even if the driver had seen and agreed to the terms, which is not the case in this instance. A lack of signs at the entrance to a car park, and unclear wording, is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and creates no contract.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3) LACK OF STANDING/AUTHORITY FROM LANDOWNER TO ISSUE TICKETS OR PURSUE CHARGES IN THEIR OWN NAME AT COURT
Vinci Park Services have no proprietary interest in the land concerned and have not responded to a request for a copy of the contract with the landowner in which authority to pursue outstanding parking charges is set out in section 7.2 paragraph (f): “whether or not the landowner authorises you to take legal action to recover charges from drives charged for unauthorised parking” has not been addressed. In the absence of this evidence, I believe that Vinci Park Services do not have the legal capacity to enforce such a charge.

I require the unredacted landowner contract including any payments made between the parties, names & dates & details of all terms included. I suspect Vinci Park Services are merely an employed site agent and this is nothing more than a commercial agreement between the two parties. There is nothing that could enable Vinci Park Services to impact upon visiting drivers in their own right, for their own profit. For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept a mere “witness statement” or site agreements instead of the relevant contract, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. There would be no proof that the alleged signatory can act on behalf of the landowner or has ever seen the relevant contract. Also a letter or statement would fail to show any payments made between the parties, and would omit dates & details of all terms in the actual contract - and so would fail to rebut my appeal point about the Operator's lack of standing & assignment of any rights.

Upon receiving the Parking Charge Notice, I, as keeper of the vehicle, have since visited the site and argue the following :

3.1) I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B.. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because Vinci Park Services are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Vinci Park Services have no signage with full terms which could ever be read at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The signs on entry are up on poles with the spy cameras attached and these cannot be read by a driver in their vehicle entering the car park. Stopping the vehicle before entering the car park to get out and read these is completely infeasible as this would cause an obstruction on a public highway and block the entrance to the car park.

3.2) A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. In this case, the driver did not see any sign, thus, there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.
As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication:
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.
Vinci Park Services needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA Assessor would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding.

4) UNFAIR TERMS
The terms that the Operator is alleging create a contract, were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance - to my potential detriment. Therefore, this charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

Further, the charge contravenes The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 :
Schedule 2 : Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair”
1(e) “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.”
5(1) ''A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999':
Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2:
5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.”
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.
19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.'

I contend the above describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden'. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is in fact a disguised penalty, issued by a third party agent which is not the landowner and has no assignment of title. Such a charge would normally be restricted to the landowner themselves claiming for any damages or loss.


[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

privateparkingchanges

P.S. Should I be providing a copy of all correspondents to POPLA to support my case?

Redx

no , only provide evidence of anything you are using in your defence

the PPC will provide popla with the paperwork (they will also send it to you too)

a quick skim read shows you havent checked it for errors, namely, the first one I spotted is more than one PPC

this is VINCI, so not CPP

proof read it please , then expect people to check it at the end

also add a section on signage too