Car Parking Partnership CPN

farthing92

Hello! Before I start I should say, I have read the newbies thread, I just have some questions still so would really appreciate any help I can get!

So I parked in a drop off zone on my University campus and got a CPN from the Car Parking Partnership. It was my own fault, I wasn't dropping off I just couldn't park anywhere else and was late for an appointment. It used to be somewhere you could safely park and not get a ticket, sadly this is no more. The limit on the zone is 20 mins, I was there for an hour. However, as far as I'm aware no one was there to clock the time I arrived.

My first confusion was, when to appeal? It says on the newbie thread to appeal online/email around day 20 (which would be today). Do I wait until they've written to me? Surely if I appeal using the online system detailed on the windscreen ticket then I'm admitting to being the driver, even if I put keeper on the appeal form.

I assume when I appeal I use the template reasons:

"You issued me with a parking ticket on 15/06/2015 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

• There was insufficient signage
The ticket that has been issued with states that there was no Pay and Display, there was no signage stating that Pay and Display was required or an option. The car park in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. Please see attached evidence...I have gathered as proof.


• The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable
The amount you have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner.

According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case, the £80 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter."


I attach below a picture of the sign and ticket, would appreciate a more expert eye casting a glance over them to see if there are any details that I can pick up on for my appeal! I should mention, it says on the ticket "no permit or pay and display" and there are no pay or display machines/signs for a machine in the area I parked.

Many thanks for any advice!!


i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm254/pennycharl/IMG_1413.jpg


i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm254/pennycharl/IMG_1211.jpg

i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm254/pennycharl/IMG_1212-1.jpg

i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm254/pennycharl/IMG_0938.jpg

Redx

you are appealing as KEEPER, like it says in the template letter , as "the driver" (me) passed it onto you, the RK to deal with as KEEPER

you use all of the template letter, no alterations, on or after day 20 from the windscreen notice

they only know what you tell them , so tell them nothing at all, admit to nothing , query everything, like ABC

A = Accept nothing
B = Believe nobody
C = Challenge everything

it also tells you in the NEWBIES thread to drop the "me , myself and I" terminology , the trap you fell into in post #1

farthing92

Sooo...I do not wait for the NTK/any kind of notice through the post? I assumed by appealing before I received that was like admitting to being the driver because only the driver would have access to the windscreen notice? Am I thinking too much into this haha?

Point noted about "me myself and I"!! I think I got mixed up with a template from a different website, just rechecked the one on the newbie thread and that is what I will use.

Thanks for the help

Fruitcake

farthing92 wrote: »

Sooo...I do not wait for the NTK/any kind of notice through the post? I assumed by appealing before I received that was like admitting to being the driver because only the driver would have access to the windscreen notice? Am I thinking too much into this haha?

Point noted about "me myself and I"!! I think I got mixed up with a template from a different website, just rechecked the one on the newbie thread and that is what I will use.

Thanks for the help

It's daunting at first, but we were all parking Newbies once.


Follow the good advice from the regulars, and query if you don't understand something, but don't dismiss it because it doesn't make sense at first. There is a reason why everything is worded as it is, it just may not be obvious to start with.

farthing92

Hi guys, wondering if you could help me out with the POPLA appeal stage!

Unfortunately I have to get it submitted by this Friday, 7th August, as I'm out of the country and my parents only just sent me the rejection letter for my previous appeal.

I was going to use the template below, I just have a query about the NTK. The only written documentation I have received from CPP so far is the rejection if appeal (I got a windscreen ticket on 15 June). So what should I include in regards to the NTK?

Thanks so much for any advice!!!

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I received a Notice to Keeper from Car Parking Partnership (CPP) ____________ for a breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle.
I have denied all liability to CPP. Following rejection of my submission I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £80 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. CPP have formed no contract with the driver (lack of signage, no consideration/acceptance).
3. CPP have no proprietary interest in the land and no standing.
4. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish 'keeper liability' under PoFA 2012.

Detailed submission

1. The parking charge of £80 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The vehicle was parked in a free 20 minute drop off zone. Photographic evidence supplied by CPP confirms the location as the drop off zone, no evidence proves this length of time was breached. As there is no charge for parking in this zones there is no loss of earnings.

The parking charge should compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges.

In this instance, unpaid charges are nil as the vehicle was parked in a free drop off zone. Any breakdown purporting to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss cannot include general business expenses because these would remain the same whether or not there were any alleged breaches of contract by drivers.


2. CPP have no contract with the driver of the vehicle; no consideration nor acceptance has flowed between the parties so the elements of a contract do not exist. The issue of a staff parking permit and parking privileges is strictly between the employer and staff member and is the only extant contract relating to parking this car on this site by this driver. Despite what they may say, CPP cannot re-offer the same parking space on different terms and allege a charge is due when there has been no loss suffered and the driver is permitted to park there.

CPP signs in this car park are sparse and unclear, to the extent that they are incapable of forming a contract even if the driver had seen and agreed to the terms, which is not the case in this instance. A lack of signs at the entrance to a car park, and unclear wording, is a breach of the BPA Code of Practice and creates no contract.


3. It is my belief that CPP have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, CPP must have specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges in the courts, and to make contracts with drivers. I do not believe such a document is in existence. I therefore put CPP to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges. In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 7, This must include assignment of the right for CPP to make contracts with drivers and for CPP to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'witness Statement' or 'site agreement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information set out in 7.1 and 7.2 and I put CPP to strict proof that their contract covers every point in this section of the BPA CoP.


4. The Notice to Keeper is not properly given and does not establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ________________________

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the NTK is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant NTK are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in the NTK wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. As I was not the driver myself, there is no case against me at all so it is, at best, surprising and irksome that CPP are pursuing this matter and wasting my time. I expect POPLA will see the significance of an operator trying to pursue a keeper, in a case where no keeper liability can be established by virtue of the operator's own failures.

In view of the above, I contend that this is an unenforceable penalty and request that my appeal be upheld and the parking charge cancelled.


Yours faithfully,

farthing92

Also not sure whether I should mention that on the ticket it says "no permit or pay and display", when actually it was a drop off zone so it should be an "overstay" issue really. Not that I was a customer of the nursery so really had no right to be using the drop off zone...