Appealing online to PPC after 28 days?

Mr_Stroopwafel

I've read the newbie thread, just wondering as I didn't get home to see my notice to keeper letter in time, I am outside the 28 days it says on their fake charge letter. If I appeal online am I likely to get the POPLA code? (assuming they do reject it which seems likely)

thank you for the help!

Redx

appeal anyway, nothing to lose

you are unlikely to get a popla code, but you never know until you try

a landowner cancellation would be ideal too

Marktheshark

Or name "the driver".

Mr_Stroopwafel

^ I did think that Mark but I've already sent the appeal online now as the registered keeper. Bit concerned that it's with Parking eye who seem like one of the worst for taking people to court.

Mr_Stroopwafel

well, good news! - I got the expected rejection letter and POPLA code...am I okay to use/plagarise recent letters from here or is there anything else I should include now? There was a mention of the Beavis case as seen in other people's letters but as far as I know still nothing has actually been announced with that. Thank you in advance, this forum has been a massive help!

Fruitcake

matt_h wrote: »

well, good news! - I got the expected rejection letter and POPLA code...am I okay to use/plagarise recent letters from here or is there anything else I should include now? There was a mention of the Beavis case as seen in other people's letters but as far as I know still nothing has actually been announced with that. Thank you in advance, this forum has been a massive help!

Use the How to Win at POPLA section of the NEWBIES thread to find an appeal that is closes to your situation and use that.


All the info is provided specifically for you to plagiarise as you see fit.

Umkomaas

The operator quoting the Beavis Small Claims Court case is disingenuous if it is not further embellished with facts about it having been appealed and is currently under consideration by the CoA.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Umkomaas wrote: »

The operator quoting the Beavis Small Claims Court case is disingenuous if it is not further embellished with facts about it having been appealed and is currently under consideration by the CoA.

Do you think this is worth mentioning in the POPLA letter?

neil.net

matt_h wrote: »

There was a mention of the Beavis case as seen in other people's letters but as far as I know still nothing has actually been announced with that.

Putting the fact that it's in appeal to the side for the moment, the Judge in the original case stated that his decision was “based on one particular set of the Claimant's standard notices and terms, which may have varied from time to time, a point which should be checked in other cases”. The Judge based his decision on some specific points of relevance that may not apply in other cases. Mentioning the ruling as if it has a broad application to all cases is misleading and scare tactics!

Redx

popla have currently sidelined PE appeals due to the Beavis case , so I am sure that popla assessors are aware of the situation, so always worth mentioning it no matter who the PPC is , plus especially on a PE case

Mr_Stroopwafel

Here's my first draft, please can you let me know if there's anything that needs amending.



POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx

As registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by Parking Eye 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 £100 invoice demonstrates an estimate of likely losses.

[FONT=&quot]This car park is Pay and Display and as far as I can ascertain as keeper, a payment was made. Having received the Notice in the post I had very little information so went and checked the signage and it seems that up to 1 hour (rounded up to the closest amount from the alleged overstay of 10 minutes) would have cost £6.50 so the only recoverable sum under the POFA 2012 is the sum of the alleged 'outstanding' parking charge = £6.50 at the most. Parking Eye have not told me these details, despite it being a prerequisite of Schedule 4.[/FONT]

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 10-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 Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye Ltd are relying upon are too small for a driver to read and 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, Parking Eye Ltd has failed to meet these requirements.
I request that POPLA check Parking Eye Limited 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 Parking Eye 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