HELP!! PCN Wing Parking Islington Council

Umkomaas

Calendar days, which also include weekends and Bank Holidays (if any fall within the period). 35 days - period!

SJgirl84

Umkomaas wrote: »

Calendar days, which also include weekends and Bank Holidays (if any fall within the period). 35 days - period!

thank you..

It is unlikely that they will respond by tomorrow, so what would you advise me to do next.

WP work with Islington Council and usually after they would reject my appeal, I would need to appeal to Islington, who would then issue the POPLA code.

Thank you again for all the help

Umkomaas

After 35 days (give it a couple more) send them a letter (with free proof of posting from the PO) stating that as they have failed to meet the requirements of the BPA CoP, the matter is now closed. Tell them not to contact you again, otherwise you will deem this to be harassment - with consequences for them! At least this will flush them out.

I'm not sure about the Borough of Islington involvement in a further appeal - but they're not members of the BPA AOS, so have no capacity themselves to issue any POPLA code.

SJgirl84

Umkomaas wrote: »

After 35 days (give it a couple more) send them a letter (with free proof of posting from the PO) stating that as they have failed to meet the requirements of the BPA CoP, the matter is now closed. Tell them not to contact you again, otherwise you will deem this to be harassment - with consequences for them! At least this will flush them out.

I'm not sure about the Borough of Islington involvement in a further appeal - but they're not members of the BPA AOS, so have no capacity themselves to issue any POPLA code.

Hi,

I received a reply for Wing 44 days later to say my appeal had been rejected and I should now send the second stage appeal to Islington council.
It is quite a lengthy thorough rejection. Should I post it up to look at, or PM someone, the reason I say this as they mention "We suggest that your claims
are made purely on the basis of having read various internet sites rather than a knowledge
of the exact legal standing between ourselves and our client."
They go on to argue all the points from the template appeal i sent in, they sound so smug and I would really appreciate help to stamp them out.

Many thanks

SJgirl84

Hi,

Could I please get some advice regarding this second stage appeal?

Wing were way over the 35 days for replying to my appeal, they replied on day 44.

I will post it below. I would think that some of you guys would find it quite amusing.

Whats my next step for the 2nd stage appeal to islington council?
Should i just send another challenge off and wait for the rejection so I get my POPLA code?

SJgirl84

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the above; and we apologise for the delay in
responding. We have reviewed the case in light of your appeal and we confirm that the
vehicle concerned was parked in an area where parking is restricted and that the area is
adequately signed to that effect.

We also confirm that the Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle did not
clearly display a valid permit as required.

Your appeal is based on the following grounds:
 The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price
term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified
 As the keeper you believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous
and the predominant purpose of the business model is intended to be a deterrent
 There is no evidence that Wing Parking have any proprietary interest in the land
 The 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer
contract/unfair terms Regulations
 There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any
contract with yourself, or the driver, is denied

The warning signs on display in the area clearly inform drivers that an estate parking
permit must be clearly displayed in order to allow users to park. On this occasion, at the
time that the Notice was actually issued, no valid permit was on display.

Whilst it is noted that you were in possession of a visitors parking permit, our records
show that at the time that the Notice was issued, the permit on display was invalid; such
invalidity being the result of the vehicle being parked in the wrong parking bay.

The permit in use was a red visitor’s permit and it is a condition of use of that permit that it
is only valid for the designated visitor bays which are identified by the letter ‘V’ or the word
‘Visitor’ marked on the grounds in front of the space. At the time the PCN was issued the
vehicle was not parked in a designated visitor bay for which your permit is valid, but
instead was incorrectly parked in tenant bay 5, which is strictly reserved for the sole use of
the resident who pays for the use of that particular bay. The vehicle was therefore in
breach of the parking conditions and as such a PCN was correctly issued.
Whilst your reasons for appealing further have been duly noted, none of the issues that
you have raised affects the validity of the PCN in anyway. We suggest that your claims
are made purely on the basis of having read various internet sites rather than a knowledge
of the exact legal standing between ourselves and our client.

Whether or not the amount charged is a genuine pre-estimate of loss is now not relevant.
The issue of parking charges needing to be directly related to a genuine pre-estimate of
loss has been negated by a recent decision in the Court of Appeal (Parking Eye Ltd and
Barry Beavis). The Court decided that even though the level of the charge might be higher
than the greatest direct loss which could be clearly proven, and indeed, that one of its
main purposes was deterring motorists from parking contrary to the advertised restrictions,
the charge could still be justifiable on public policy and commercial grounds, as the
amount charged was neither unconscionable or extravagant. In circumstances where the
amount being charged for this Parking Charge Notice is broadly in line with that which is
charged locally for breach of parking restrictions on the nearby public highway, in this
case £80.00 - £130.00, we do not feel that our charge is unconscionable or extravagant
and therefore we believe that it does not constitute an unenforceable penalty or that it is
necessary for us to directly relate its value to any genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered.

Similarly, the Court of Appeal has also decided in the matter of any suggestion that the
parking charge is unfair and therefore unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “Regulations”) as the Court ruled there was
no want of good faith under the Regulations. The Court found that the rules of the car park
were prominently displayed and contained no hidden traps. The Court agreed that the
term did not cause a significant imbalance between the parties’ rights and obligations and
therefore it did not breach the Regulations. In circumstances such as those in this case
where it is clear the parking restrictions were also prominently displayed and contained no
hidden traps, we believe that the parking charge does not breach the Regulations as has
been suggested.
We maintain that all relevant aspects of the Court of Appeal case are also relevant in this
particular case and therefore we maintain that in light of the Court’s decision, we believe
there can be no dispute that our charges are both legal and enforceable.

Your claim that the sign was not seen is irrelevant. You were clearly aware of the permit
restrictions and the mere fact that you were displaying a permit confirms this. No permit of
any type would have been necessary if there were no permit restrictions to be considered.
By displaying the permit you were automatically accepting the permit’s conditions of use
and it was therefore your responsibility to ensure that you took note of these terms and
conditions prior to displaying the permit and leaving the vehicle unattended.

The wording on the sign is in no way ambiguous as you claim. The sign clearly states All
vehicles must clearly display an estate parking permit and it is subsequently a condition of
use of your permit that it is only valid when the vehicle is parked in a designated visitor
bay.

We also dispute your claim that we do not have sufficient interest in the land. The contract
to park is not actually offered by ourselves at all, it is offered by our client London Borough
of Islington who do hold the necessary legal interest in the property. We are not offering
the contract, we are merely acting as agents in the management of that contract and we
have a written and signed agreement with our client where they authorise us to carry out
this service for them. Both ourselves and our client are satisfied that the written and
signed agreement between us does provide us with sufficient legal authority to issue the
PCN and to seek to recover payment of that PCN from you on their behalf. The agreement
is however subject to Data Protection and there is therefore no legal requirement for us to
disclose this agreement to any third party.

You have not explained in what way our parking charge notice fails to comply with POFA
2012 and in the absence of any specific information on that point, we cannot uphold an
appeal on such a broad, vague and unsubstantiated statement.

We totally dispute your suggestion that no contract was formed. It has been a long
established principle that instructions and information clearly displayed on warning signs
are sufficient to constitute a contract, even in the absence of any monetary consideration
or individual negotiation of terms. Your vehicle clearly passed at least one warning sign
before arriving at its parked position and therefore we are satisfied that a legally binding
contract was entered into. Such an opinion is also clearly held by all relevant parties
including our clients, the BPA, POPLA, the County Courts and the Court of Appeal.

Having noted your comments we remain satisfied that the parking charge notice was
correctly and legally issued and we are not prepared to withdraw it as you suggest. For
the avoidance of doubt we also reject any suggestion that by merely replying to your letter
means we are accepting liability for your costs either at this stage or ongoing.

The reason for the issue of the Notice is supported by photographs taken at the time and
these also support our actions. If you wish to view images of your vehicle at the time of
enforcement, you can do so on our website https://www.wingparking.co.uk. Please select the
link that says "Enforcement Images" and follow the instructions. You will need to enter
both your registration number and the reference number of the Notice you were issued in
order to view the images. However, please note that you DO NOT have to make
payment or enter any personal data or credit card details to view the images
We have thoroughly reviewed this case and whilst we appreciate your comments and
circumstances, we have acted in accordance with the instructions from our clients and the
warning sign that was on display prior to the issue of the Notice. The Parking Charge
Notice was correctly and legally issued and therefore the Notice and the charges must
stand. We trust the above clarifies the situation.

The charges have been held during your appeal and we will allow a further period of 14
days from the date of this letter during which you may pay the discounted charge of
£60.00. Thereafter the full charge of £100.00 will be due. Your account has already been
amended to reflect the lower charge and full details of how to pay are shown on the rear of
the PCN or on our website, https://www.wingparking.co.uk/make-payment

We hope that we have addressed the issues raised in your appeal, but if you are
dissatisfied with the facts outlined in the reply, you have the option of taking your
complaint further, to Stage 2, by writing directly to our clients within 14 days. If you wish to
make a Stage 2 appeal, please address your correspondence to:

Estate Parking Section
London Borough of Islington
PO Box 14055
Islington
London
N5 1WD

Alternatively you may email estate.parking.section@islington.gov.uk

The Stage 2 appeal must be made within 14 days of the date of this reply and must
include:

 Your name and address
 The registration number of your vehicle
 The date and exact location of the incident
 Why you feel that the PCN should be cancelled

If you do not submit a Stage 2 appeal with 14 days, or make payment of the charge within
28 days, then the matter may will be passed for further action to recover the charge and
this may incur you in additional charges.

HO87

Don't overthink this. Wing operate - with the various borough/arm's length companies they work for - a non-standard appeals process many of which have 3 levels before POPLA (normal BPA operators have a just two stages the second of which is POPLA).

The BPA are apparently happy with this appeals set-up - even if one of the inevitable consequences of this unnecessarily protracted procedure is that people are simply worn down and pay up. There is no need whatsoever to pay up.

Use the same appeal as you did for Wing and send to it Islington. When you obtain their rejection you will have to write to Wing but just stick to your guns using the same appeal again in order to obtain a POPLA code. There is no need to change it.

nigelbb

If the name of the driver has not been disclosed & all appeals have been made as the Registered Keeper then this response has confirmation from Wing Parking that this is not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012 & keeper liability cannot apply. This is important for all similar cases where Wing Parking manages parking for Islington.

The contract to park is not actually offered by ourselves at all, it is offered by our client London Borough of Islington who do hold the necessary legal interest in the property.

SJgirl84

Ive received my POPLA code now which was given by Islington Council when they rejected my stage 2 appeal.

Wing parking took 44 days to respond to the stage 1 appeal. However, although over the 35 days, their response was extremely detailed as you can see in the previous posts.

Islington's appeal was similarly long (I cant copy & paste it, advise on how to get up a PDF would be helpful if you need to see it)

As they have addressed each of my appeal points, and haven't just given a quick rejection, I suspect I will need some help and advice to get a good appeal to POPLA so I can win this challenge.

Please help, many thanks

ManxRed

Bear in mind that most of the points that Islington have probably rejected, would be upheld by POPLA.