UPDATED: How to appeal PCN if not the driver?

Northlakes

Looks very good to me but await more expert eyes. There's no rush yet but at least you have your appeal points in the right order.
Delete those last few words 'the charge be dismissed'. You aren't on trial!

Feral_Moon

Northlakes wrote: »

Looks very good to me but await more expert eyes. There's no rush yet but at least you have your appeal points in the right order.
Delete those last few words 'the charge be dismissed'. You aren't on trial!

Thanks will do. It seemed an unbelievingly daunting task when I first set out to tackle it yesterday, and it took a good few hours of reading and research. Now I've actually completed it, it doesn't seem that difficult at all, especially with the vast amount of expert knowledge available both here and on other websites/fora.

It was simply a case of making a note of the points relevant to my situation and finding the correct and appropriately worded piece of legislation to match. So, for anyone else reading this who may find themselves in a similar position, please don't feel daunted or scared at the prospect at formulating an appeal. If I can do it then so can anyone

Redx

Feral_Moon wrote: »

I'm ok for time as my deadline isn't until 17th August so no urgency but I assume I will need to send this via post rather than email so will need to allow adequate postage time.

It did, after all, arrive with me 10 days late!

you assume wrong

popla allow you to upload the appeal on their website and it clearly says so

check your popla code at parking cowboys and ensure your appeal is with popla before the expiry date of the code

most people would upload it as a word doc (or a pdf) on the popla website

Feral_Moon

Redx wrote: »

you assume wrong

popla allow you to upload the appeal on their website and it clearly says so

check your popla code at parking cowboys and ensure your appeal is with popla before the expiry date of the code

most people would upload it as a word doc (or a pdf) on the popla website

Thanks, I hadn't yet got around to checking on how or where I should send the appeal. The POPLA code is fine, it's the first thing I checked when the letter arrived yesterday.

bod1467

Have you included a comment regarding the late delivery of the rejection, thereby losing you 10 days of your appeal window? (Some PPCs make a habit of doing this - trying to game the process. If everyone made POPLA aware of this then it may help with statistical analysis. Might also be worth a complaint to the BPA regarding the long delay between them rejecting and you receiving it).

Feral_Moon

Hi guys, I've now received the evidence pack via email from POPLA Cases and to be honest I'm not sure how to proceed from here or whether I actually need to do anything at all at this point.

Having said that, I've spotted a couple of anomalies in the evidence UKPC have supplied:-

1) they have incorrectly spelled my name at every opportunity in the evidence document.

2) a site photograph they have included on the very last page displaying the signage they've made reference to is one of a completely different unit on the site, located at least half a mile away and on a different road. Ironically, I actually know the people who rent that particular unit :rotfl:

This is their "evidence" if anyone would like to take a look and see if I need to respond to anything...

On 31st May warden number xxxxxx issued a parking charge to vehicle registration xxxxxx at Clifton Road Industrial Estate. The parking charge was issued because the vehicle was parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit. The Parking Charge amount was £100, reduced to £60 if payment was received within 14 days.

An appeal was received from Mrs <wrong name> on 8th July, to which the appeals department investigated and decided to reject. The basis of Mrs <wrong name>’s appeal was that the sum is disproportionate, and does not represent a genuine pre- estimate of loss.

In the recent case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402, the Court of Appeal unambiguously clarified the common law’s position on both the nature and enforceability of parking charges.

It is now clear that a parking charge having the predominant purpose or intention to deter is ‘not sufficient in itself to invalidate [the charge]’. The principle test that should be used is whether the sum charged is ‘extravagant and unconscionable’ (see para 51). In the case, it was found that the parking charge was not extravagant and unconscionable and thus fully enforceable under the rules about contractual penalties (see para 31). This ruling now represents the most authoritative judgement in the area of parking law and must be strictly adhered to.

In undertaking this ‘principle test’, an ‘excessive concentration’ on the difference between the amount payable under the charge and the measure of actual loss sustained has been strongly ‘deprecated’ (see para 18). The Court of Appeal understood that in certain circumstances parking operators may not suffer any ‘direct financial loss’ from parking contraventions. However, even in these circumstances, the Court recognised that such contraventions can cause an ‘indirect loss’ to parking operators. For example, the inability of an operator to prevent breaches of parking restrictions would likely result in the loss of its service contract with the landowner (see para 25).

Though the Court recognised that it is theoretically possible to charge motorists more ‘modest amounts’, it would be ‘wholly uneconomic to enforce such charges by taking legal proceedings against them’ (see para 25). Further, the Court appreciated that charges must be large enough to act as a ‘deterrent’ and large enough to ‘justify collection’ (see para 30).

Despite indications that a charge is extravagant and unconscionable, other factors may be present which ‘rob’ the charge of this character (see para 27). In prior cases, it has been the case that only commercial factors or justifications have been considered.

However, in Beavis, the Court of Appeal stated that such charges can be justified using other considerations, such as ‘social’ factors, due to the fluidity of a ‘rule grounded in public policy’ (see para 27). Relevant public policy factors were highlighted by the Court when it stated that deterrent charges can be beneficial to drivers, shopkeepers and ‘the community as a whole’ (see paras 38 and 45). The Court also found that Parliament’s enactment of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 strongly supports the conclusion that the legislature considered it to be ‘in the public interest’ that parking charges be valid and enforceable (see para 28).

Following the test of extravagance and unconscionability, as well as taking into account the applicable public policy factors, it is without doubt that your parking charge is wholly valid and fully enforceable.

There are sufficient signs warning drivers that should they choose to park without displaying a valid permit they may become liable to receive a Parking Charge. Miss <wrong name>’s vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit and consequently the Parking Charge was issued.

A letter was sent to Mrs <wrong name> informing them of our decision on 20th July.

Cheers guys :beer:

Umkomaas

You need to rebut every assertion made by the PPC, otherwise it might be held that you accept that assertion.

In terms of the surname - is it a slight spelling error (or typo) or is it entirely the wrong surname?

You must make the point assertively about the photographic evidence showing an incorrect location (you might add here that UKPC seems to have a number of serious issues with their photographic evidence - currently being investigated by the BPA and Action Fraud).

Here's an excellent example of how one poster dealt effectively and comprehensively with a PPC's Evidence Pack. I'm sure this will give you plenty of ideas on how to handle your case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/67385911#Comment_67385911

And another one to consider.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67402366&postcount=26

Feral_Moon

Thanks, it is actually a typo rather than a completely different name so wasn't sure whether it was something I could actually use. I'll certainly challenge the photographic evidence they've used to illustrate site signage though as this is blatantly incorrect.

As for the rest of it, they seem to have based their evidence almost entirely on GPEOL and the Beavis case and not addressed any of the other points I made in my appeal to POPLA (in post #20 above). I haven't a clue how to address anything connected with Beavis so will have a look at the links you've suggested and come back if I have any further questions.

Feral_Moon

Just to add, POPLA were originally supposed to make a ruling on my appeal on or around 18th September so am I to assume I need to submit my rebuttal well before this date, which is actually less than a week away! :eek:

Umkomaas

Feral_Moon wrote: »

Just to add, POPLA were originally supposed to make a ruling on my appeal on or around 18th September so am I to assume I need to submit my rebuttal well before this date, which is actually less than a week away! :eek:

Yep. Evidence packs from PPCs are usually received around one week prior to the forecasted adjudication date.

You do need to respond quickly.