Popla Stage - Need Help!

Csaw

Hello all

I have used this forum to get me to this stage of my battle with Car Parking Partnership over a ticket issued for me overstaying at Keele University Students Union car park. I used the template in response to Car Parking Partnership's NTK and I am now at the popla stage. I have trawled through the forum using the search for relevant threads on how to format and what to include in my popla appeal but have unsuccessful so far. So hoping you guys can help me out in any way you can now.

So the details are:

Parking charge notice left attached to windscreen on 27/04/15 for overstaying. I had a two hour ticket and overstayed by only about 10 minutes BUT have lost the original parking ticket which showed I had overstayed just 10 minutes. I received the ticket at 12:47 and since the minimum amount of time you can purchase is two hours combined with the fact that charges only start from 9am, I was thinking they could only argue I overstayed for an hour and forty seven minutes. How important is the length of time overstayed when arguing against the parking companies making a Genuine Pre Estimation of Loss?

Any templates that have been used in the past would be great, not to good with writing out legal jargon myself and would appreciate any help in this regard. Also are there any other factors I can use in my popla appeal?

Thanks in advance

Redx

you didnt look very far then, as this one was on page 2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5223807

we may point you at the info, we wont do it for you, not for free !!

as for gpeol, that is being argued in the Supreme Court in 2 weeks time and a decision is expect by say november, so we may be able to answer that aspect by xmas

doesnt really matter if its 15 minutes or 2 hours, an overstay is an overstay and is being debated in that courtroom (except he could not pay to stay longer), so tune in online 2 weeks tomorrow (see pranksters blogs) to see court in action

Umkomaas

Any templates that have been used in the past would be great, not to good with writing out legal jargon myself and would appreciate any help in this regard. Also are there any other factors I can use in my popla appeal?

Presumably you're not a University student?

Csaw

I did see that thread and many others similar to it but assumed that since the issue was "No Permit or Pay and Display" the core text of any template or appeal would be different to that of the issue of "Overstayed". Is this not the case? If so I will draw up an appeal based on that and bring it back here for final oversight.

Also thanks for clarifying the importance of the length of time.

Redx wrote: »

you didnt look very far then, as this one was on page 2



we may point you at the info, we wont do it for you, not for free !!

as for gpeol, that is being argued in the Supreme Court in 2 weeks time and a decision is expect by say november, so we may be able to answer that aspect by xmas

doesnt really matter if its 15 minutes or 2 hours, an overstay is an overstay and is being debated in that courtroom (except he could not pay to stay longer), so tune in online 2 weeks tomorrow (see pranksters blogs) to see court in action

Csaw

I am a student at the University in question, although to answer the point I believe you're alluding to my course did not cover legal matters in any regard and as such would be pretty useless in helping me write a parking charge appeals letter

Umkomaas wrote: »

Presumably you're not a University student?

Umkomaas

I will draw up an appeal based on that and bring it back here for final oversight

Is the right answer! :T

Csaw

Okay so have taken templates from other threads and have tweaked it about to be relevant in my own case, hopefully you guys can see anything I am missing or have done wrong.

I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a Civil Parking Notice for ‘Overstayed’. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

1. The Notice to Keeper fails to establish 'keeper liability' under PoFA 2012.
2. No landowner contract assigning rights to Car Parking Partnership to enforce contracts with drivers
3. No contract formed by the signage
4. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss

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

The Notice to Keeper does not specify the 'period of overstaying'. It states only that the car was seen at 12:47 on the day in question. The period of parking is required by POFA 12 Schedule 4 paras 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(b)).

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the Notice to Keeper is a fundamental document in establishing keeper liability. The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA2012 as regards the wording in a compliant Notice to Keeper are clear and unequivocal and a matter of statute. Any omission or failure in the Notice to Keeper wording means there is no 'keeper liability'. 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.

2. No contract assigning rights to the Operator to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers

The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that the Operator does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require the Operator to supply a copy of the current contract with the landowner (and if their contract is merely with another agent, or indeed merely the Security Services, who do not own the land, then I put Car Parking Partnership to strict proof of their rights to form contracts having been authorized from the landowner).
Furthermore, I require that the Operator demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that this Operator can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.

3. No contract formed by the signage

I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. Specific parking-term signage has been failed to have been displayed throughout the site and there is no possibility of reading them at the time of parking or leaving vehicle. Since receiving the Notice to Keeper, I sought out and tried to read the signs which has tiny font, so that the words are barely readable. The signs are not prominent. I put Car Parking Partnership to strict proof otherwise; as well as a site map they must show photos. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. Car Parking Partnership 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. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed through correct signage which is absent in this case. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Car Parking Partnership fails to display signage at the entrance to the car park that mentions terms and conditions apply, where to find out more details about them and also who the car park is managed by in a manner that is readable and understandable from a moving vehicle.

4. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd 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 this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to pursue, and they certainly cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage. The same is true of the parking attendant who is already paid to visit sites and take photos & issue PCNs, and is not significantly diverted from this activity when a car is considered to be parked in breach.

Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’

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.

With all this in mind, I oblige POPLA to inform the operator to cancel the parking charge.

Redx

mmm

cannot see the blue words from the NEWBIES sticky thread in the above , should be at the bottom, below not a gpeol , which should be the last item, not the first

as for coursework, I havent been to uni or college for decades and never studied legal work as I majored in comms, but it hasnt stopped me formulating and winning several popla appeals already for family and friends

when you put your mind to it, with research (like you are now doing), its surprising what you can do

Csaw

Edits completed, with regard to the Beavis case is it unlikely the appeal will be accepted on any of the other factors?

Redx

Csaw wrote: »

Edits completed, with regard to the Beavis case is it unlikely the appeal will be accepted on any of the other factors?

its in the Supreme Court 2 weeks today, with hopefully a decision by xmas

ask again in the new year , lol

but popla are currently accepting appeals where there is no contract, flaws in NTK,s , poor signage, anything other then not a gpeol, which are stayed

Csaw

Well I'll get this sent off to Popla and hope for the best