We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
POPLA draft appeal for review
osy98jb
Posts: 9 Forumite
Background: I parked my wife's company car at a London underground station but couldn't get the ticket machine to accept my card. Yellow sticker when I returned. She initially wrote to NCP (without naming the driver) and they rejected it. Any thoughts or comments on this POPLA appeal letter would be most welcome. Thanks.
On 18th May 2015, National Car Parks Limited (NCP) issued a parking charge notice claiming my car was “parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments detected.”
As the keeper, I wish to refute the these charges on the following grounds:
1. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
2. A lack of NCP’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
3. Railway land is not ‘relevant land’.
4. [FONT="]The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.
[/FONT]
1. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident.
In this case NCP has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 penalty charge is arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. Given that NCP charge the same fixed charge to any alleged breach of contract (whether serious/damaging, or trifling in this case), it is clear that there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:
19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract
Therefore, without a genuine breakdown of the actual or pre-estimated costs, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge be dismissed.
2. A lack of NCP’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
It is believed that NCP does not own this car park and are merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, since no evidence has been provided it is believed that they are not lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver due to the fact that they do not own nor have interest/assignment of the title of the land in question. Therefore, I ask that NCP be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must be pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.
3. Railway land is not ‘relevant land’.
Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not ‘relevant land’ within the meaning of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Act. As I am the keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask NCP for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws. The onus falls upon NCP to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.
[FONT="]Having visited the location of the alleged “breach”, it is evident the signage provided by NCP does not comply with the BPA code of practice in particular 18.3, 18.5 and 18.8. NCP are required to show evidence to the contrary.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]4. The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.[/FONT][FONT="]
Unclear signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that contractual terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. In the absence of sufficiently prominent and detailed signage, the driver could not have been made aware of any charges applicable nor that a contract had even been proposed by NCP in respect of the alleged event. There is no offer to park at the location by payment of a charge, and there is no description of what the driver would receive from such a contract. The Appellant submits that a valid contract was not offered; even if (non-compliant) signs were present, the driver was not offered the opportunity to enter into a negotiation in order to influence the contractual terms, nor given the opportunity to accept or reject any terms. The Appellant submits that, if signs were present on the day of the alleged event, they were not prominent enough to form a valid contract. The Appellant submits that no detailed terms relating to NCP’s onerous, inflated penalty charge were visible, and it is therefore apparent that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Taking all the above points into consideration, I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct NCP to cancel the Charge.[/FONT]
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
On 18th May 2015, National Car Parks Limited (NCP) issued a parking charge notice claiming my car was “parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments detected.”
As the keeper, I wish to refute the these charges on the following grounds:
1. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
2. A lack of NCP’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
3. Railway land is not ‘relevant land’.
4. [FONT="]The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.
[/FONT]
1. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident.
In this case NCP has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 penalty charge is arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. Given that NCP charge the same fixed charge to any alleged breach of contract (whether serious/damaging, or trifling in this case), it is clear that there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:
19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract
Therefore, without a genuine breakdown of the actual or pre-estimated costs, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge be dismissed.
2. A lack of NCP’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
It is believed that NCP does not own this car park and are merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, since no evidence has been provided it is believed that they are not lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver due to the fact that they do not own nor have interest/assignment of the title of the land in question. Therefore, I ask that NCP be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must be pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.
3. Railway land is not ‘relevant land’.
Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not ‘relevant land’ within the meaning of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Act. As I am the keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask NCP for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws. The onus falls upon NCP to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.
[FONT="]Having visited the location of the alleged “breach”, it is evident the signage provided by NCP does not comply with the BPA code of practice in particular 18.3, 18.5 and 18.8. NCP are required to show evidence to the contrary.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]4. The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.[/FONT][FONT="]
Unclear signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that contractual terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. In the absence of sufficiently prominent and detailed signage, the driver could not have been made aware of any charges applicable nor that a contract had even been proposed by NCP in respect of the alleged event. There is no offer to park at the location by payment of a charge, and there is no description of what the driver would receive from such a contract. The Appellant submits that a valid contract was not offered; even if (non-compliant) signs were present, the driver was not offered the opportunity to enter into a negotiation in order to influence the contractual terms, nor given the opportunity to accept or reject any terms. The Appellant submits that, if signs were present on the day of the alleged event, they were not prominent enough to form a valid contract. The Appellant submits that no detailed terms relating to NCP’s onerous, inflated penalty charge were visible, and it is therefore apparent that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Taking all the above points into consideration, I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct NCP to cancel the Charge.[/FONT]
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
0
Comments
-
Background: I parked my wife's company car at a London underground station but couldn't get the ticket machine to accept my card. Yellow sticker when I returned. She initially wrote to NCP (without naming the driver) and they rejected it. Any thoughts or comments on this POPLA appeal letter would be most welcome. Thanks.
On 18th May 2015, National Car Parks Limited (NCP) issued a parking charge notice claiming my car was “parked without clearly displaying the required valid pay and display ticket and no other cashless parking payments detected.”
As the keeper, I wish to refute the these charges on the following grounds:
1. A lack of NCP’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
2. Railway land is not ‘relevant land’.
3. [FONT="]The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.
[/FONT]4. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
1. A lack of NCP’s proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
It is believed that NCP does not own this car park and are merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, since no evidence has been provided it is believed that they are not lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver due to the fact that they do not own nor have interest/assignment of the title of the land in question. Therefore, I ask that NCP be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must be pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.
2. Railway land is not ‘relevant land’.
Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not ‘relevant land’ within the meaning of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Act. As I am the keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask NCP for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws. The onus falls upon NCP to demonstrate this and I put them to strict proof on this point.
[FONT="]Having visited the location of the alleged “breach”, it is evident the signage provided by NCP does not comply with the BPA code of practice in particular 18.3, 18.5 and 18.8. NCP are required to show evidence to the contrary.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]3. The signage was not in accordance with the BPA code of practice and was not sufficiently prominent to form a contract.[/FONT][FONT="]
Unclear signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that contractual terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. In the absence of sufficiently prominent and detailed signage, the driver could not have been made aware of any charges applicable nor that a contract had even been proposed by NCP in respect of the alleged event. There is no offer to park at the location by payment of a charge, and there is no description of what the driver would receive from such a contract. The Appellant submits that a valid contract was not offered; even if (non-compliant) signs were present, the driver was not offered the opportunity to enter into a negotiation in order to influence the contractual terms, nor given the opportunity to accept or reject any terms. The Appellant submits that, if signs were present on the day of the alleged event, they were not prominent enough to form a valid contract. The Appellant submits that no detailed terms relating to NCP’s onerous, inflated penalty charge were visible, and it is therefore apparent that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.[/FONT]
4. The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
The demand for a payment of £100 as noted within the Parking Charge is unreasonable and exceeds any appropriate amount of loss suffered by the Landowner. There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident.
In this case NCP has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £100 penalty charge is arrived at, and whether it is an actual or pre-estimated loss. Given that NCP charge the same fixed charge to any alleged breach of contract (whether serious/damaging, or trifling in this case), it is clear that there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
Under section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice it states the following:
19.2 In the Code ‘parking charges’ means charges arising from enforcement under three different circumstances:
• When a motorist breaks the terms and conditions of a parking contract
• When a motorist trespasses by parking without permission
• Agreed charges that are advertised in the contract
Therefore, without a genuine breakdown of the actual or pre-estimated costs, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge be dismissed.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
[FONT="]Taking all the above points into consideration, I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and instruct NCP to cancel the Charge.
[/FONT]
it needs to be like the above amendment, with not a gpeol pushed to the last point with the beavis case below it, as you can see I have flipped it around a bit0 -
I find it strange that this does not match your version of events
[FONT="][FONT="][FONT="] There is no offer to park at the location by payment of a charge,
[/FONT]
[FONT="]either you can pay and it was faulty, or there is no method of payment at all
[FONT="]the signage should have indicated what to do if the machine is faulty, like rin[FONT="]ging NCP up and a telephone number etc[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]0 -
Thanks for your help. Good catch on the payment signage, I will fix that.0
-
I submitted the letter to POPLA. They wrote to me this week to say NCP had cancelled the ticket. No reason given, but job done!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards