HELP!! PCN Wing Parking Islington Council

SJgirl84

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Diarise to send the NEWBIES thread appeal at days 21 or 22 each time.

It's a fake PCN from a dumb PPC. Talk to this person, it's EASY, do this together:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5205663

HTH

Hi,

Could you please help me with a POPLA appeal. You helped my friend previously and sent a POPLA appeal via PM, but I think I need you to look over the rejection as they were very thorough and I do not want to make a silly mistake on my appeal and lose at POPLA.

Thank you in advance

bod1467

First things first - go to Parking Cowboy's site and check the validity of the POPLA code. When does it expire?

SJgirl84

bod1467 wrote: »

First things first - go to Parking Cowboy's site and check the validity of the POPLA code. When does it expire?

Hi, I have until 21st July

SJgirl84

Heres my draft appeal:


1. Signs - no contract with Driver
2. Notice To Keeper - no 'keeper liability'.
3. Agency agreement - no Locus Standi
4. Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty
5. The Notice To Keeper states the charge is for 'breach' so must prove it is a Genuine Pre Estimate Of Loss

1. Signs - no contract with Driver
Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear & so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it & agreed. It is not enough to have some signs; this wording is unclear & dresses up a penalty as a 'contractual' fee. It is not; see point 4.

2. Notice To Keeper - no 'keeper liability'.
The Notice To Keeper fails to identify the 'creditor', state a 'period of parking' or meet the requirements of POFA. It is not for me to guess who the creditor is. It could be Wing Parking or Islington (both legal names are on the Notice To Keeper). Or the creditor could be one of those who the letter states 'suffered loss', or their client or another party.

It was an 'immediate' PCN, with no Grace Period, which breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice. No 'period of parking' on an Notice To Keeper breaches POFA and it fails to repeat facts from the Parking Charge Notice - even the sum to pay is hidden & it omits wording from paragraph 8 of Schedule 4. There is no 'keeper liability' from a fundamentally flawed Notice To Keeper.

3. Agency agreement - no Locus Standi
This is an agency 'agreement' limited to 'issuing tickets'. There is no assignment of rights to pursue Parking Charge Notices in the courts in their own name nor to form contracts.

A site agreement or redacted contract will not suffice. I put Wing Parking Ltd to strict proof of their specific British Parking Association compliant contract wording. If the client is an agent, I put this Operator to strict proof that the actual landholder authorised the managing agent to grant them 'landholder rights to sue'. NB: I am not merely challenging the 'issuing of Parking Charge Notices'.

4. Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty
The sign & the Notice To Keeper are unclear, ambiguous & contradictory. On the Notice To Keeper the sum is extremely hard to find, hidden in small print on the back! It is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms' and this is repeated in the rejection. Yet the sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a time-limited stay, a payment mechanism and a VAT invoice. There is none. This is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise the interpretation that favours the consumer applies.

The OFT on UTCCR 1999:
Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. A term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a'disguised penalty', a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.

5. The Notice To Keeper states the charge is for 'breach' so must prove it is a Genuine Pre Estimate Of Loss.
This is really about breach of contract, so loss must be shown. The legal document (Notice To Keeper) refers to 'breach of contract' & the rejection mentions 'loss to tenants, landowners and residents'. Wing Parking Ltd have failed to exempt their charge from the test that the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The car park was not full & the driver was involved in a delivery to a resident, so they must show how this delivery caused loss.
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case

SJgirl84

Do you mind looking over it and comparing it to the rejection WP sent me in post #27

Coupon-mad

SJgirl84 wrote: »

Hi,

Could you please help me with a POPLA appeal. You helped my friend previously and sent a POPLA appeal via PM, but I think I need you to look over the rejection as they were very thorough and I do not want to make a silly mistake on my appeal and lose at POPLA.

Thank you in advance

I can no longer accept pm's as I am otherwise busy with something I can't mention on here without being accused of advertising!

You just need to search this forum for 'Wing POPLA' to find a better example than the one above.

a.gardner01

Dear all,




To all those who spend their time helping us folk out, I'd just like to say a massive thank you.


My first round 'informal' appeal to Wing Parking in Islington was accepted on first round. Just incase it's useful to others, here's verbatim what I sent to them:


---


Dear Sirs

Re: Parking Charge Notice No. XXXXXX

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term.
b) The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified.
c). There is no evidence that you have any interest in the land. I will complain to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
e). I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.

Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I will only appeal further if you offer POPLA, the only independent ADR with a scrutiny panel and trained Assessors. The 'IAS' offered by IPC firms will not be used, for well-documented reasons.

''Drop hands'' offer
The charge is baseless but I realise that you may have nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs for responding to your junk mail dressed up to mimic a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15 so this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days and I will not pursue you for my costs.

Breach of CCRs
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered nor expressly agreed. This 'contract' is cancelled and any obligations now end.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.


----


Wohoo! Victory felt so sweet.


Thanks again guys

a.gardner01

Oh, maybe should mention (for a laugh?), they apparently went to get some legal advice on the issues I raised.

HO87

a.gardner01 wrote: »

Oh, maybe should mention (for a laugh?), they apparently went to get some legal advice on the issues I raised.

Well done and a special thanks for taking the time to come back and let everyone know how you got on and how you did it.

Umkomaas

a.gardner01 wrote: »

Oh, maybe should mention (for a laugh?), they apparently went to get some legal advice on the issues I raised.

Or maybe they realised they were up against a forum assisted appeal and with the chances of their 'arrangements' being exposed, decided to cut and run!

Whatever the reason - well done OP, you're now clear of this rubbish! :T