Ticket for parking in a "Minibus" space

Fruitcake

pompeyvhimes wrote: »

Hi all,

I've received a rejection of my appeal email (despite my request for a postal reply) but they have provided me with a verification code for my POPLA appeal.

My main grounds for appeal are the incredibly poor signage and minibus reserved parking is just absurd! I can't find a template appeal letter that would suit my appeal. is there a basic one that anyone knows of that I could amend please?

There are no templates for PoPLA appeals. First of all, check the code is valid on the Parking Cowboys website. If it is duff, complain to BPA and DVLA. If it is genuine, start reading through the POPLA decisions Sticky thread to find and modify a successful appeal that is similar to your situation.


Include as many relevant appeal points as possible, but according to post 6 you already have a winner, non POFA compliant NTK, plus the poor signage photo's you took of the site.

Umkomaas

No standard template as such, but your appeal needs to cover the following:

1. No keeper liability (but you need to check the NtK for correct dates and all requirements of PoFA have been included) - see here:
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
4. No proprietary interest in the land
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy (if appropriate)
7. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)

Read very carefully post # 3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky - it contains information important to your appeal.

There are plenty of examples of winning POPLA appeals across the forum; here are a couple of links for you to follow and research:

How to win at POPLA:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62180281&postcount=15

Some of the appeals linked here are now becoming a little dated, so be careful to use one of the more recent ones as your guide to framing your own.

Please don't do a 'copy and dump' of the first thing that looks 'legal' enough, then expect regulars to pick it apart and amend it all for you. We won't do that, so you need to understand what you're copying, you need to proof read it and make sure any references you make (Beavis in particular) are up to date, and everything relates broadly to your parking event.

POPLA Decisions

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Read from the most recent backwards to get a feel for the appeal points on which POPLA Assessors are currently upholding appeals.

pompeyvhimes

Please can you let me know if you feel there any glaring ommitions from my letter of appeal?

Thanks in advance

Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
The signage constituted a board attached to a wooden batten the was inserted into a hollow block brick. The angle at which it was presented to the driver made it unclear 1) what the signage represented 2) which actual car parking spaces it referred to. (please see attached photographs)


2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

In the appeal, MPS did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).

In Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) -v- Mr Ronald Ibbotson (Case Reference 1SE09849 May 2012) District Judge McIlwaine reminded the Operator of the basic premise in contract law of the duty to mitigate any loss, specifically relating to private parking in circumstances where the employee is near enough to observe and speak to the driver.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
MPS lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put MPS to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to make contracts with visitors and (specifically) to pursue their 'charges' in the courts in their own name as creditor (a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice). Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.
4. Notice to Keeper not properly given under POFA 2012 – no keeper liability.
The Notice I have received, as the registered owner of the vehicle, makes it clear that Millennium Parking Services is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Millennium Parking Services has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the ‘Creditor’. This may, in law, be Millennium Parking Services or their client, their debt collecting agent, or the landowner or indeed some other party. Schedule 4 of the Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have the words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is.....”.

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not just indicate that the creditor must be named/assumed, but “identified”. The owner of the vehicle is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom the driver has allegedly contracted. In failing to specifically identify the ‘Creditor’ in its Notice to Keeper, Millennium Parking Services has failed to establish keeper liability. In this case, the NTK has not been correctly 'given' under POFA2012 and so it is a nullity. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is 'fundamental to establishing liability' for a parking charge, stating: 'where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'

In addition to this the original “incident” occurred on 06.05.2015 while the notice to owner was issued on 16.07.15. This is a full 72 days after the original incident and is again non-compliant with the following regulations.”

Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.
A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered either
(Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver;

5) Business Rates and VAT would apply if the charges are contractual agreements for the provision of a service

MPS run a business in this car park for revenue and profit, and (although no adequate signs were seen by the driver) I now notice that their signage appears to try to create a contractual agreement for 'services'. I put MPS to strict proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority Valuation Office in respect of this 'contractual parking service' business, and that they are paying VAT to HM Revenue & Customs.

I respectfully ask the POPLA assessor to consider my points and photographic evidence and order that this charge be cancelled.

yours faithfully,


XXXX XXX

pompeyvhimes

Sorry for my persistence but does anyone feel that this is good enough?

I have worked on it but would feel more reassured if someone had the time to cast an eye over it?

Much appreciated.

Fruitcake

pompeyvhimes wrote: »

Sorry for my persistence but does anyone feel that this is good enough?

I have worked on it but would feel more reassured if someone had the time to cast an eye over it?

Much appreciated.

There are few typos and additional line spacing in a couple of places will help, but a steady proof read should sort that out.


"1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
The signage constituted a board attached to a wooden batten the was inserted into a hollow block brick ..."

Put in a list of bullet points at the top: -


1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
4) etcetera,


You could also make point 4) the last one if you wanted to ensure the assessor reads all the other points first, as non-compliant NTK should win hands down.

Umkomaas

Business rates - old hat, hasn't worked with POPLA previously, certainly won't work now.

Your Keeper Liability, appeal point 4 is 'lost' because of lack of line spacing. But this is your really strong point and should be moved to appeal point 1.

GPEOL is now recommended to be placed as the final appeal point, with the addition of the final paragraph taken from the Newbies sticky, post #3, shown in blue text - covering Beavis - should POPLA not find for you in any of the foregoing appeal points.

That's it from me!