Appeal to POPLA?

Frank35

A friend of mine has received a PCN from Premier park, he has sent the template appeal letter from this site, not surprisingly the appeal has been refused although none of the issues have been addressed and he now has a POPLA verification code. The letter refers to POFA 2012 schedule 4 - Collection of unpaid parking charges. My question is, is the appeal letter to POPLA the same letter sent to Premier parking or should it be tailored differently? Any assistance would be much appreciated.

Redx

the template forms the basis of the popla appeal, but it is tailored differently and expands on the legal arguments

see these examples

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

Frank35

Thanks RedX, I have now drafted the below, is this OK to send to POPLA? should I add the info that my friend has received from the PC, eg the PCN which contains some grainy pictures of car entering and leaving the car park?

• Dear POPLA Assessor,
  
  As the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXX using POPLA verification code XXXXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration.
  
  1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
  2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
  3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
  4. Unlawful penalty charge
  5. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
  6. ANPR usage
  7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
  8. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
  
  
• 1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
  The amount of £100.00 demanded by Premier Parking Ltd is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
  Premier Parking Ltd has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention despite my requesting them to do so. As Premier Parking Ltd cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.
  Given that Premier Parking Ltd charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty.
  
  
  2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
  
  As a POPLA Assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. Premier Parking Ltd must prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms at the time the alleged contravention took place. Had this been the case, i.e. the driver had seen the terms and conditions of parking, it would be implied that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility, and so I dispute the existence of a contract between the driver and the Operator.
  
  3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCNs
  The BPA code of practice 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.
  
  Premier Parking Ltd does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Premier Parking Ltd has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Premier Parking Ltd to strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Premier Parking Ltd produce to POPLA the contract between the landowner and the Premier Parking Ltd.
  
  4. Unlawful penalty charge
  Premier Parking Ltd cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Premier Parking Ltd could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.
  
  5. ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) accuracy
  Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Premier Parking Ltd to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. As the parking charge is founded entirely on 2 photos of my vehicle entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that Premier Parking Ltd produces evidence in response to these points.
  
  In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Premier Parking Ltd to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The Operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence, without a synchronised time stamp, there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR evidence from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence put forward in the recent case of ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge deemed the evidence from ParkingEye to be fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point. As its whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put Premier Parking Ltd to strict proof to the contrary.
  
  6. ANPR usage
  Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it is stated: 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
  Premier Parking Ltd fails to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As Premier Parking Ltd uses inadequate signage on arrival, as described in section 2 above, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system, essentially being a secret high-up spy camera, far from 'transparent', unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.
  
  7. Proof of planning consent for current parking conditions, chargeable regime and ANPR system
  Some parking companies do not have the necessary planning permissions and consent from the local authorities for their current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of ANPR systems. I put Premier Parking Ltd to strict proof to provide evidence that it has the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the current parking conditions, chargeable regimes and installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on the site in question.
  
  8. Non-compliant Notice to Keeper
  The Notice to Keeper sent by Premier Parking Ltd to myself is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor. The Operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor, which requires words to the effect of "The creditor is ..... ". The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. Premier Parking Ltd has failed to do this and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.