Window Screen Ticket Issued - Now received NTK... Advise please?

totallytech

Hi, I need to send this tonight:

1. Genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Norfolk Parking Enforcement have attempted to answer the issue of GPEOL by discussing the current appeal (which is still being heard in the courts, therefore no decision has been reached yet) between Parking Eye v Beavis - however this is not actually responding to the issue.

There is no Genuine Pre-estimated of Loss breakdown included to show how they have come up with £100: As business costs are not losses and they cannot be passed down to a motorist as GPEOL. As Norfolk Parking Enforcement have failed to provide this information they seem to infer that it is up to me to demonstrate how their £100 is not a GPEOL - I am not sure this is possible and is any case a moot point as the burden of proof is upon Norfolk Parking Enforcement to demonstrate the loss that has occurred as a result of the alleged breach. Despite submitting this 'evidence' pack they have failed to do this.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

a) Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 28 days) 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.

I required Norfolk Parking Enforcement to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.

I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £1.00 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £40 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

b) The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none as this is a free car park) by Norfolk Parking Enforcement and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay or be charged for parking in the “incorrect” bay (as decided by Norfolk Parking Enforcement). There can have been no loss arising from this incident as Millers Walk Shoppers Car Park is a free car park, therefore the parking charges have been paid in full and there is no loss to the owner. The issue of parking in a disabled bay without showing the correct badges really doesn’t exist as unfortunately the passenger in the car was disabled however does not have badges. As per my attached copy (AOS.EA2010.pdf ) – A meeting headed by Patrick Troy, with the AOS Board on 10th April 2014 stated:

“The complaint that demanding the display of a blue badge is unfair does have some merit. Badges are only issued to those people who meet the criteria set down by the Department for Transport (or other statutory bodies outside England). Those criteria are different to the definition of a disabled person in the Equality Act. It is, therefore, possible to be a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act, have a need for a reasonable adjustment under that Act, but not have a blue badge.”

Clearly, under the Equality Act, as a person in the vehicle was disabled, the vehicle was parked correctly.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. Signage
The colour blue is specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. Norfolk Parking Enforcement have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.
The text on the entrance sign says “Parking Restrictions Apply” however this is not on the list of approved wording in Group 1 or Group 2 text within the BPA CoP (Appendix
Furthermore it simply would not be possible to read any signs whilst in a moving car, and certainly not have read them sufficiently to have be deemed to fully understand the T&C's to which it is alleged I agreed to as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Due to the issues above I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Norfolk Parking Enforcement have failed to produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Norfolk Parking Enforcement 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.

I put Norfolk Parking Enforcement to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and I demand that Norfolk Parking Enforcement produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and Norfolk Parking Enforcement.
Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, 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 Norfolk Parking Enforcement and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Norfolk Parking Enforcement can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
Norfolk Parking Enforcement have not provided a copy of the contract for me to defend against.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. Terminology
Whilst there is no reference to Penalty or Fine the use of the terminology PCN is usually used as Penalty Charge Notice.

5. Proof of Planning Permission
Just like section 1 and 3 above, again there seems to be no valid copy of the proof of planning permission included for me to defend against.
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Guys_Dad

In the No Contract, I would change one paragraph with suggested changes in red
I believe there is no contract with the landowner that entitles Norfolk Parking Enforcement 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.
They may,for example, have a contract with a leaseholder of the property but the leaseholder may not have the rights from then landowner to engage a parking company as this could change the use of the land and make it liable to higher business rates. It is, therefore, essential that the PPC provides a complete audit trail of their full authority to impose charges right back to the actual landowner.

totallytech

Hey, thank you - I've amended as per your idea

I've bought the land plans etc, can I ask Popla to confirm the name of the company that NPE name as the land owner? NPE say they submitted the contract to POPLA but they didnt submit it to me... So should I just say if the land owner is not named as XYZ then they do not actually own the land, and cannot have a contract with NPE etc.?

totallytech

Although isn't it up to NPE to prove the person they have the contract with is actually the legal owner?

nigelbb

totallytech wrote: »

Hey, thank you - I've amended as per your idea

I've bought the land plans etc, can I ask Popla to confirm the name of the company that NPE name as the land owner? NPE say they submitted the contract to POPLA but they didnt submit it to me... So should I just say if the land owner is not named as XYZ then they do not actually own the land, and cannot have a contract with NPE etc.?

NPE cannot supply evidence to POPLA without giving you a copy so that you have the opportunity to rebut it. If this is what they have done then complain to POPLA & get the evidence excluded.

Guys_Dad

nigelbb wrote: »

NPE cannot supply evidence to POPLA without giving you a copy so that you have the opportunity to rebut it. If this is what they have done then complain to POPLA & get the evidence excluded.

Absolutely right. And if they have actually done that, then the BPA should also be made aware of this.