UK Parking Patrol office PCN Help Wanted

bazster

Jinx_001 wrote: »

Aside from the point about no pre-estimated financial loss, what other points should I include in the appeal?

No contract, rubbish signage, no standing and on and on and on. Have you read the Newbies thread?

Don't waste too much time over it though because the appropriately-named Steven Cheetham will reject it anyway. The subsequent PoPLA appeal is the one that matters.

Jinx_001

Hi,


As expected, I received the rejection email and have received a popla code. I have drafted my popla appeal and just wanted to check I have covered everything and also if there is anything that I should omit?








[FONT="&amp]Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

RE: POPLA Code *******

Vehicle Registration: *******
PPC: UK Parking Patrol Office
PCN ref: ******
Alleged Contravention Date: ******
Date of notice: ******

On **** 2015 I received an invoice from UK Parking Patrol Office requiring payment of a £100 charge for the alleged contravention of “Parking in a Prohibited Area”. The vehicle appears to have stopped, for possibly 2 minutes, to allow a passenger to alight on the airport approach road.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
1) Not relevant land for registered keeper liability
2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) “Penalty Charge Notice” Breach of BPA Code of Practice
4) No authority to levy charges
5) Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply
6) Signage
7) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper

1) Not relevant land for registered keeper liability
I contend that this is not 'private land' as defined by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability. It's an Airport road and this Airport is known to have Byelaws and the right to 'registered keeper liability' is simply not available on land covered by local Bylaws. Railway or Airport land is generally not 'relevant land' under the definition within the POFA. The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that this particular Airport Road is not covered by Statute or Byelaw and is 'relevant land' (as defined in Schedule 4 paragraph 3) because I believe it is not 'relevant land' at all.[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]
2) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states:

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer.

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually
agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or
unreasonable

The keeper require UK Parking Patrol Office to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses.
I, therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld


3) “Penalty Charge Notice”Breach of BPA Code of Practice[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]If it is indeed a “Penalty Charge Notice” issued under statute then [/FONT][FONT="&amp]POPLA[/FONT][FONT="&amp]has no jurisdiction and the matter should be referred to Trading Standards for possible criminal proceedings. The wording “Penalty Charge Notice” and “Fixed Penalty Notice” have been used by the Operator in their correspondences and in their signage and therefore UK Parking Patrol Office is in clear breach of the BPA CoP which states:

[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]14 Misrepresentation of authority[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]14.1 You must not misrepresent to the public that the parking[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]control and enforcement work you are doing is carried[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]out under the statutory powers of the police or some[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]other public authority.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]14.2 You must give clear information to the public about what[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]However, you must not mislead the public into believing[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]that the rules you are enforcing are based upon the[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]powers of an agency regulated by Statute.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]14.3 Operators who suggest to the public that they are[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]providing parking enforcement under statutory authority[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]will be acting in breach of the Code.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]14.4 You must not use terms which imply that you are acting[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]under statutory authority; this will include terms such as[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.[/FONT]

[FONT="&amp]14.5 The term ‘PCN’ is used to denote a ‘Penalty Charge[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]Notice’ in the ‘on street’ environment. If you use the term[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]PCN in your ‘Parking Charge Notice’, you must preface[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]PCN with ‘Parking Charge Notice’ at least once in your[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]document.[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT][FONT="&amp]B10.5 You must not try to impose a ‘penalty’. You must not call[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]a parking charge a ‘penalty charge’ on any document[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp](electronic or paper) that refers to parking charges, or on[/FONT]
[FONT="&amp]any signs in your car parks.[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]
4) No authority to levy charges.
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract.
The Operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the land-owner; or, a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the land-owner to issue charge notices at this location
The Keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles the Operator to levy these charges and to pursue these 'charges' in their own name as creditor in the courts and, therefore, has no authority to issue charge notices.
The keeper puts the Operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that the Operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Operator.

5) Keeper is not liable for the charge as POFA does not apply
This is not a parking issue, but a stopping/dropping off passenger issue. Therefore POFA 2012 does not apply, which means Registered Keeper liability does not apply
I 1) This was not a parking incident as defined by the POFA 2012 which states:
Quote:
1(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and ...
2) Therefore, keeper liability does not apply
3) The operator may only pursue the driver
4) The operator has offered no proof as to the identity of the driver
5) The operator should not have requested the keeper details from DVLA.

I, therefore, respectfully request that my appeal is upheld


6) Signage
Prominent, clear signs are a strict requirement of the CoP and are especially important in an area the Operator is, apparently, claiming is a no Dropping Off/ Picking up zone, bearing in mind that this is an area of moving traffic where a driver will not have had a chance to read and understand any alleged contractual terms merely signposted in unclear 'headings above small-print' style.
The keeper puts it to the Operator to demonstrate how their signage meets the BPA's regulations.[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]I would also like to point out the 'No Stopping Zones' section of the Chief Adjudicator's first Annual POPLA Report 2013:

''It is therefore very important that any prohibition is clearly marked; bearing in mind that such signage has to be positioned, and be of such a size, as to be read by a motorist without having to stop to look at it. Signs on red routes, unlike those indicating most parking restrictions, are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it.''

[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]I contend that even if the sign could be read from a moving vehicle, which it cannot, no contract could be entered in to as this is a matter of “Dropping Off/ Picking up” and not one of parking.

As there was no contract entered in to I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.


7) No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper
Failing to include specific identification as to who 'the Creditor' may be, is misleading and not compliant, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the POFA. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to be made to UKPPO, there is no specific identification of the Creditor, who may, in law, be UKPP or some other party. The POFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that 'The Creditor is….' and the Notice does not.
I, therefore, respectfully submit that my appeal by upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours Sincerely,

[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp] *********[/FONT]


[FONT="&amp]
[/FONT]

Jinx_001

Sorry I forgot to add their rejection letter below:


Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter of appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued by us on ****2015
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:

The vehicle was captured via CCTV footage parked loading/unloading whilst in clear view of a warning sign stating “No Stopping/Loading/Unloading In This Area”, see attached. There are signs around the entire airport complex including at the entrance that clearly state the parking restrictions in place. Security at the airport is paramount and any vehicle captured loading or unloading in anywhere other than the official collection/drop off car park is issued a notice by the CCTV operator.

The land is subject to byelaws, to which we are contracted to enforce. The penalty was issued under these byelaws and not contract law, therefore the Protection of Freedom Act does not apply and the registered keeper is held liable.

We are in possession of a signed agreement with the landowner. We are unable to supply you with a copy of this agreement due to Data Protection but a copy will be produced should the case go to court/POPLA.

The vehicle has been issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice. Therefore genuine pre-estimate of loss is not relevant and the penalty was correctly incurred.

You now have a number of options:

1. Pay the Penalty Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60 within 14 days. Please note that after this time you will lose the chance to pay the discounted rate and the full amount of £100 will become payable.

2. Make an appeal within 28-days to POPLA- The Independent Appeals Service by visiting their website at: popla website and completing the accompanying forms. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case and are unsuccessful, the full amount of £100 will become payable. If you opt to pay the penalty charge you will be unable to appeal to POPLA. Your verification code is: **********

3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.

How to Pay:
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY £60 WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM THE ISSUE OF THIS CORRESPONDENCE. CHEQUES/POSTAL ORDERS SHOULD BE CROSSED AND MADE PAYABLE TO:

bennjiboy

i have the same pcn through today, what was your outcome please?