CPM - 11 digit POPLA code ?

Mike172

Good old UKCPM.

Double_V

Okay
Following is the email I received back from BPA.

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Dear Mr XXXXX,[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Thank you for your e-mail and update. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]I am pleased to hear you have now received a correct POPLA code. You now have 28 days to appeal to the independent appeals service. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]We will still be contacting the operator regarding this to ensure this does not happen to another motorist. You should not have had to chase the operator for your Code. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Thank you for letting us know the Code has been issued and assisting us in ensuring our members are compliant with our Code. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]Kind regards,[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]AOS Investigations Team [/FONT][/FONT]

ManxRed

Have a slap on the wrist you naughty naughty PPC!

Umkomaas

Double_V wrote: »

What do you think, do I have any ground here ?
I mean i have a permit, i was parked in my own designated bay. The permit just fell off due to condensation etc.

I have pictures of people parking illegally infront of my bay and leaving the car to go collect their kids from the centre because our car park saves them a walk.
They are never given tickets.
And I have trouble reversing into my bay, as there is no room to manoeuvre.

Please tell me can I defend this ?
You are all experienced.
Couple-Mad. Need your expertise.

Many thanks

This is all 'mitigation'. You will NOT win on any of this!

Coupon-mad isn't here at the moment, so you need to use her very detailed NEWBIES FAQS sticky (post #3 'How to win at POPLA') which she spent many, many hours in putting together - the most comprehensive private parking advice anywhere on-line.

If you don't feel confident in putting an appeal to POPLA based on the dozens of examples in the sticky, then flash it up here for us to ensure you've got the main bases covered. But we won't read through it word by word, so make sure you don't copy and paste from an appeal where you also copy some other random PPC, rather than the one you're involved with.

And please don't include any stuff about condensation, picking up kids, taking pictures or having trouble reversing!

Mike172

Search my threads if you need a template

Doubt UKCPM will try to fight you or submit any evidence when you appeal to POPLA.

I wouldnt over think this btw. Just get an appeal submitted with the 'usual' points that people submit (GPEOL is the most important). I submit the same one time and time again and UKCPM never bother defending.

Theyre pretty boring actually

Youll be baiting them in no time!

Actually no dont bait them as we dont know whats going to become of the PE vs Beavis case.

Double_V

Morning
And thank you for all your replies. I appreciate.
Now I have got the following appeal letter.
I will need some help tweaking this appeal, I am new to this and have no experience.
The points in red needs some attention.

Background to my situation:
My car was parked at my own designated bay at residential flats. I am holder of valid permit. Permit somehow fallen off the windscreen. And I was issued a PCN on windscreen.
I contacted the operator explained everything - Rejected.
In rejection letter I am asked to pay the fine within 14 days at reduced price £60.

I very much appreciate your time and help.
Thank you in advance.

My rejection letter can be found here:

https://s22.postimg.org/62bbvgept/IMG_1726.jpg

http://s22.postimg.org/8xof2bipt/IMG_1727.jpg

Appeal template/letter.

***********************************

1. No genuine pre estimate cost
a) The Charge is for damages disguised as a contractual sum

The nature of this charge is discernible based on the following –

(i) The Operator has repeatedly stated on the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), Appeal Rejection letter that the PCN has been issued due to a ‘breach of the Terms and Conditions of parking’ which is ‘not displaying a valid permit’. This clearly evidences the claim is for a breach of contract and not a contractually agreed amount.

(ii) If the charge sought were for an agreed contractual sum, the Operator would have issued an invoice and not a penalty charge notice

(iii) By virtue of HMRC a Contractual sum is liable for VAT. It is a legal requirement to state the percentage and the amount of VAT due on any transaction for an amount over £50. Conversely damages are not liable for VAT. The Operator has not alluded to nor provided any VAT information in the PCN, Appeal Rejection letter nor have they provided a parking VAT invoice.

(iv) The Operator provides no provision to pay the sum of £100 at the location, therefore it is not a genuine offer to pay that amount and therefore not recoverable

(v) The terms stipulated on the signage state ‘Terms of parking without permission...£100 per day.’ An alleged contractual sum cannot be demanded where permission by the owner of the designated bay has been granted, irrespective of whether this permission has been granted verbally or in writing. Therefore no contractual sum can be sought by a third party.

(vi) In a recent ruling at Luton Crown Court 2014 (Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty), CEL v McCafferty, the judge ruled the sum quoted on the sign was not a genuine offer to park at that price, but its main purpose was to deter. It was, therefore, a penalty dressed up as a contractual term, and not recoverable.
In light of the above I strongly contend the sum sought is that of damages and not a contractual sum.

b) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100, being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely ‘parking without displaying a valid CPM permit’, is disproportionately high. Consequently I contend and 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.

The case at hand involves a private parking area for residents with allocated spaces. The vehicle was parked in the allocated bay with full authorisation. Therefore is no loss to anyone.

As the charge in this case is the same lump sum charged for any alleged ‘breach’ (e.g. irrespective of whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or 24 hours or had received permission from the individual entitled to authorise parking in this designated parking bay etc.) it is clear the charge is a punitive measure and no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case, as stated earlier, no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner. I would also refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, which states parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the Landowner during the time the Motorist is parked there. I remind them that the amount in this case is nothing.

Additionally Henry Michael Greenslade in SBV v KMJ (POPLA Nov 2013) states -
‘On the face of it, fees incurred by an operator in an appeal to POPLA might be a recoverable loss but the whole ethos of the appeals system is that there is no charge to the motorist’. I therefore contend there is to be no charge to the Motorist for this and cannot be included as a loss. It is also not a reasonable cost to be incurred at the time the PCN was issued.

This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the alleged breach.

POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and is not commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss. I respectfully request my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. Contract with Landowner

The Operator does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary nor 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 there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they 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).

In order to comply with the BPA code of practise, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons;

a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practise to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers.

b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provides a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency.

Should a basic contract be produced mentioning parking charge notices, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

I would remind the Operator of their obligation to provide the Appellant with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent with sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

3. Inadequate Signage

The BPA code of practice October 2014 clearly states "Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what [the] terms and conditions are, including parking charges. [The Operator] must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand".

I assert that being unable to read the detail on the sign visible on entry and parking, breaches this code. There are no signs the at the relevant location on the development. I therefore require the Operator to submit evidence of the signage in the form of site maps and photographs, clearly indicating the location and height of said signage at the time of the alleged breach.

I have photographic evidence for the purpose of rebuttal should the need arise and would once again remind the Operator of the requirement to submit copies of any evidence to the Appellant allowing sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal.

4. The alleged contravention did not occur

The vehicle was parked in the designated bay with full permission and authority from the designated owner of the parking bay, at the time of the alleged breach. This verbal contract is relied on and supersedes any terms and conditions on the signage.

5. Non-compliant Formal Demand Letter - no keeper liability established under POFA 2012

The ‘Formal Demand Letter’ (as described by the Operator) does not constitute a Notice to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability has been established. In particular the Operator has-
• Failed to repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f). [Para 8(2)(c)]
• Failed to specify whether the parking charges specified in the notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) has been paid in part and specify the amount that remains unpaid in the notice to keeper [Para 8 (2)(d)]
• Failed to inform me as keeper of any arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available under independent adjudication or arbitration [Para 8 (8)(b)]
• Failed to identify the creditor [Para 8(2) (h)]
The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 and the mandatory detail and wording to ensure a NTK is compliant are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of statute, not contract law. Any omission or failure to set out the mandatory NTK wording will result in no 'keeper liability'.
As such the Operator has not provided a valid Notice to Keeper within the 28 day period as specified by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

6. Failure to inform of POPLA code (BPA Code of Practice)

By virtue of s.22 BPA guidelines October 2014, the Operator is required to inform of ’the arrangements for independent appeal’ and ’at what stage an independent appeal to POPLA becomes available’. The Formal Demand Letter
omits this information. In addition s.22.12 states ’If you [the Operator] reject an appeal you must tell the motorist how to make an appeal to POPLA’. The Operator has failed to inform me how I may make an appeal to POPLA in the appeal rejection letter.

The Operator failed to provide valid POPLA code, I was given invalid POPLA code twice, I had to chase the Operator for a valid POPLA code. I was given valid POPLA code on third attempt.

Should CPM decide to rebut my challenge I put them to strict proof of the contrary of this assertion, to which I am entitled to reply.

In consideration of the above I contend the parking charge sought is a sum by way of damages and the damages sought on this particular occasion do not substantially amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss or fall within commercial justification.

Double_V

Pretty please.

Double_V

Anybody ??

Double_V

Okay
So I submitted my appeal using the above template.
Submitted via email and online form on the Popla site.

Lets see.

DoaM

Did you take a screenshot of the online acknowledgement that you appeal was submitted? Did you get an acknowledgement email reply? (Keep evidence of having made the appeal, just in case).