Hospital POPLA appeal

Rainbowgirl28

Hi new to this but advice needed.
Had a ticket while at work, I pay £8.98 per month to park at the hospital I work at but permit fell off on to the seat , clearly visible through the window. Many pictures taken by company of my windows failing to display the ticket, but none taken through the window which would have proved my intention to do the right thing. Have failed at informal appeal, of course, they want my money but feel so cross I want to appeal again, do you think I have a chance?

Half_way

The answers in the newbies thread, by appeal again do you mean challenging it at POPLA?

Redx

who is the parking company ?

did they give you a popla code ?

if yes, check its expiry date on parking cowboys website

Rainbowgirl28

Hi, thanks,
the company is "total parking solutions"
checked "cowboys" web site, code is valid and I have til 16th June, it seems as if appealing against "Genuine pre estimate of loss " might be the way to go as the PENALTY is punitive. The fact that my permit had dropped off the window may not work on its own. How do I get to newbies thread?

Guys_Dad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

It is at the top of the forum !!

Do the signs state that the permit must be displayed on the dashboard or windscreen?

For future, why not stick it to the windscreen all the time??? You could use the space where the old RFL used to be plus some sellotape.

Redx

the NEWBIES sticky thread is a few threads above this one at the moment, near the top of the forum

your popla appeal needs to be based on the usual suspects

not a gpeol
bad signage
no contract

anything else that is relevant

search for similar recent popla appeals using the search box and suitable search words

then adapt one of those appeals to suit this one

do not miss that deadline, tick 3 of the 4 boxes online (not stolen) and attach the appeal as a word doc or pdf

Rainbowgirl28

Hi, thanks Guysdad, this is a good spot, I have photographed the signs at work and they DO NOT state to display the permit! I am going to appeal to POPLA on the grounds of bad signage and GPEOL,

Rainbowgirl28

How does this look people?

Dear POPLA Assessor,
Re: Total Parking Solutions Charge Notice, verification code HT3186531

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Total parking solutions. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
2) The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards andt here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.
3) The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.
4) Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

Here are the detailed appeal points.

1) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

A monthly sum is deducted from salary to give access to the parking areas for staff. Therefore having paid this sum (see attached copy of pay slip) no losses we incurred at all.

Furthermore demand for payment of £60 is punitive and an arbitrary sum invented by Total Parking Solutions for the alleged breach of contract.

The BPA AOS Code of Practice states in section B point 19.5 “If the parking chargethat 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 thatyou suffer”.

SectionB point 19.6 states “If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.”

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

2)The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no validcontract formed between Total Parking Solutions and the driver.

The signage regarding the terms and conditions of parking in the car park at Grantham Hospital is inadequate and is not in line with the BPA AOS Code of Practice. I have attached photo ofthe signage at the car park. There is no stipulation on the sign that staff visibly display their permit. ( see attached photograph)

The Code of Practice also requires that signage beerected at a car park entrance and states in Section B point 18.2 that “Thesize of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park”. Appendix B of the Code of Practice meanwhile has aninclusion that such signage “should be placed so that it is readable by driverswithout their needing to look away from the road ahead." Any further information on signage on ticketing machines are not visible from the road and not accessed by staff permit holders.

The permit issued by TPS to staff users does not contain further information regarding visible display see attached photograph of permit).
However any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.
Such a lack of adequate signage on site would mean that no contract was formed between myself and Total Parking Solutions, and with this in mind I request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

3) No valid contract with landowner

Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require Total Parking Solutions to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is a flawed business agreement model.

If Total Parking Solutions produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest Total Parking Solutions don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance. It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

4) No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.