ticket on window from PPC

hoohoo

Make sure your initial appeal does not give away the driver identity, since now only the driver is liable. Edit your initial post if necessary.

I would appeal simply on this basis.

I am appealing as keeper. Your notice to keeper was not served within the timescales and so keeper liability does not apply. As keeper I am therefore not liable.

Additionally the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and does not meet the criteria for social justification or deterrent levels established in ParkingEye v Beavis.


When the POPLA code comes through, don't hang about, but get your POPLA appeal in ASAP (subject to getting it validated on this forum)

hoohoo

MrTom85 wrote: »

Great, so on the sending the above; if/when I receive the PPC rejection and a POPLA code is received, I should get the POPLA appeal in as quick as possible and should be fairly confident of it being overturned? That's good news then!

If these rules they have to follow are known and so many are successfully overturning these charges, why do they not learn and get their replies perfected? I'm glad they haven't, but it just seems illogical!

Only 1% of appeals got to the POPLA stage so they are playing the numbers game.

There are no penalties if an operator lies, cheats or attempts to extort money which is not owed, so they continue to do so.

MrTom85

So an update, received rejection letter today. It included the POPLA code and the code checker has said it is valid and given me till 8th Sept.

So, to start work on what I will send to POPLA I've sifted through threads that I think are similar to mine and picked out this one which I've used as a template to start tweaking (or more drastic changes if you guys think it would be better?) ready for submission just before the deadline.

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX, I am appealing against parking charge number XXXXXXX using POPLA appeal code XXXXXX. I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points be 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. Failure to issue NTK within 57 day window

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days demanded by Corporate Services (Parking Management) is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs, which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place.

Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention.. As Corporate Services (Parking Management) 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 Corporate Services (Parking Management) 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.

The original poster included the following too, which I haven't asked them specifically but they are the same company. Should I send such a request too?

"In its reply to my initial letter requesting a breakdown of how supposed damages of £100 have arisen, Corporate Services (Parking Management) has claimed the following as proof of its alleged ‘losses’ on which the charge is based:

- Wages and salaries including Employers National Insurance Contributions
- IT systems, software, licenses and peripherals
- DVLA fees and processing costs
- Costs in preparing and sending PCNs – stationery, postage and printing
- Legal, Accounting and other Professional costs
- Human Resources
- Premises Costs
- Vehicle and Telephone costs
- Loss of Pay and Display Ticket revenue generating from paying customers (where applicable)
- Loss of purchase revenue to Retail Outlets within the car park"


The next bit I'm not entirely sure is usable, signage isn't clear and no sign on the entrance contrary to what the NTK states. But there is a pay and display machine in which I did use (just didn't make it back in time due to queue in bank ergo no receipt from shop)

2. No contract between driver/Inadequate signage
Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question, and I believe the signage at this car park is inadequate for the following reasons.

There is no sign on the entrance and the signage was not cleary visible nor immediately obvious. Therefore, no contract was formed at all with me as the driver; I was unaware of any parking restrictions and no consideration flowed between the Operator and myself, no agreement was reached nor acceptance of any clear terms at all. I had to drive back the following day in order to look for these signs, there are only 3 other signs in this particular car park but 2 of these were not visible from where my vehicle was parked, from where my vehicle was parked only one sign on the opposite brick wall would have been visible, In addition, the wording is so small that it would not be reasonable to assume anyone entering the car park has a chance to read and accept any terms and conditions of parking stated on the signage whilst driving in a safe and responsible manner. It is therefore entirely possible, even expected, that drivers would enter the car park without seeing this sign. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late.

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”. Corporate Services (Parking Management) 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 rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site. 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.

Corporate Services (Parking Management) does not own this car park and is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Corporate Services (Parking Management) has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Corporate Services (Parking Management) 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 Corporate Services (Parking Management) produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Corporate Services (Parking Management).

4. Failure to issue NTK within 57 day window
Under Schedule 4, paragraph 8 sub-paragraph 5; the NTK must be issued within a 28 day window starting on the second day after the initial 28 days ergo the NTK being dated as issued 22/07/2015 and date of the event is 23/05/2015 is outside of that timeframe.

This concludes my appeal. I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if Corporate Services (Parking Management) fails to address all points above and provide the necessary evidence as requested.

Yours Faithfully,

So, from an initial draft, what can people suggest?

Redx

I can suggest that not a gpeol be the last point, followed by the Beavis paragraph in blue from the NEWBIES sticky thread