F1rst Parking LLP - Essex University

SamL1994

Hi, so i am a student at the university of Essex and I park my car in one of the car parks which is for permit holders or alternatively for those who want to pay an hourly fee.

I parked my car in there for months and all of a sudden got several tickets when before i wasn't receiving tickets. I have appealed to first parking for all of the tickets and they have rejected all of my appeals. So now i need to apply to Popla an have read the threads on here which sounds promising.

Just wondering if anyone could help me directly with my appeal as i am a bit lost with all of this stuff and don't really fancy paying £50 per fine for 6 fines as i am living off a student loan.

Thanks

ampersand

'Just wondering if anyone could help me directly with my appeal'
-
all the help necessary is on the Threads, so no more begging posts:-). Don't use the f--- word either.

Read the newbies stickies THOROUGHLY.
Post any popla drafts here for a critique.
You will have to do one for each, tailoring it the time/circs applicable every time.
Pay real attention to this.
Check you haven't run out of time: you've given no dates for those 6 speculative invoices.
#'for permit holders or alternatively for those who want to pay an hourly fee' -
which were you at the time of your parking events?
#
You've found some threads with popla ref.s in them - but you are not specific as to what they are.

Learn to use the Search box - insert F1rst Parking LLP.

Challenge the Uni's ppc apologist line. It is defective, if akin to this:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68228786#Comment_68228786
#
I hope you haven't given away who was driving but suspect otherwise.

Read fully and you'll be aware that this lot infest Bath, Herts and Warwick Uni's, prob. others.

SamL1994

Sorry just need help i don't know what do to for a draft, I appealed within 28 days to the PPC for all tickets but the first one.
I was neither i had no permit and no ticket because nobody was getting tickets before April and so from Oct-April i parked there wit h no trouble then suddenly got tickets.

SamL1994

I have used someone else's popla letter and changed parts to match my case. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? Is it good enough to win at Popla?


"POPLA CODE «POPLA_Code»


As the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxxxx at the time of the incident, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by F1rst Parking LLP.

My appeal is based on the following grounds.

1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss.

2. Contract with the landowner – no locus standi.

3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.

To expand on these points:

1. No breach of contract and no genuine pre-estimate of loss
The parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable under contract law. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

I require F1rst Parking LLP to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’.F1rst Parking LLP cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.

According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner charges a maximum of £8 for the area in question, this is the maximum loss they would be entitled to claim. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''
In ParkingEye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.
Also in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79, there is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach”. My case is the same and I respectfully request my case is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

2. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
F1rst Parking LLP do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that F1rst Parking LLP has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow F1rst Parking LLP to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between F1rst Parking LLP and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013

In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.'

I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. F1rst Parking LLP cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss.

3. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
Due to their position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms that F1rst Parking LLP are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £50 in a free car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence.

Based on the above arguments, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed."

ampersand

So, were they new to site then?
#
'Sorry just need help i don't know what do to for a draft' - let's say it's panic I'm reading there, not laziness:-)

Sam - there's no avoiding the reading and re-reading you must do.

You'll just have to approach it like any other piece of coursework.

There's no magic wand or instafix. It's how we all arrived here - luckily.
#
If F1rst Parking LLP. is a new regime, were all students properly informed?

If you ignored the 1st tkt, you may not be able to obtain a popla no. now, but can try. They are key to seeing these tkts off.

Check those replies. Check the popla codes are valid. Demand a popla code for the 1st tkt.

Again, I hope you haven't given away who was driving but suspect otherwise.
#
Crossposted - , haven't time to do more now, but will check later.
Ensure you are being accurate with times/dates/night/day ref.s when you tailor each response.

Copy, cut and paste is not sufficient without understanding cases cited e.g. re: signage. According to you, tickets just suddenly happened. You haven't spoken about seeing any signage, so you can't write 'Due to their position and the barely legible size of the smallprint, the signs in this car park are very hard to read.....etc.etc.' - as you have in 3>popla.

Sam, you have to read properly and concentrate.

SamL1994

No they company were always in charge of the car park but they just didn't seem to be handing any tickets out. I have a popla code for the first ticket so it should be fine? Nope i havent given away that i am driving in my appeals

enfield_freddy

"Hi, so i am a student at the university of Essex and I park my car in one of the car parks which is for permit holders or alternatively for those who want to pay an hourly fee."


1: do you have a permit?


2: did you pay the hourly fee?


on this site we try to help motorist that are being "conned" by the PPCs , and its not our intention to deprive them of parking charges if they are correctly issued


I suspect that the £300 charge (6 x £50 tickets) is not much greater than the amount you would have paid for in the months of Oct-April for parking .


you owe the uni , a amount equal to this , no beer this weekend , pay up!