CPS Midlands parking charge

FinedIndividual

So I sent in that appeal and I have had this response from CPS Midlands which POPLA are awaiting a response from me for. Could anyone take a quick look and advise me on what to say back?

imgur.com/a/qyunR

Sorry still can't post direct links!

FinedIndividual

Point 5 seems to be particularly good for me, they said that their notice to keeper can't be non-compliant as they haven't sent me one yet (nearly 5 months later!!)

FinedIndividual

Sorry to keep bumping this but any advice is much appreciated? Want to get this sorted soon!

System

Where are the pics of the signs they are relying on?

Where is the copy of the contract they sent as the earlier one is well out of date. Can't see a clause that allows them to issue tickets.

Post them up

Also have a pic of the location and the absence of signs around the site.

Umkomaas

What date did POPLA give you by which to respond to the CPS Midlands evidence submission? It's normally just 7 days.

FinedIndividual

Sorry I have been away again and forgot to check back, POPLA didn't give me a date to reply by so I will call them this week and confirm

The signs and contract as requested
imgur.com/a/o5uq1

Coupon-mad

No please don't phone, why do people always want to call about PCNs?! Don't phone POPLA, the clerk who answers the phone will tell you that you are too late to add anything. So don't ask. Just do it. You are WEEKS too late but you must email something anyway.

Just put together a rebuttal and email it to POPLA once you are happy with it after showing us what you intend to say. We won't write it for you. It is all pretty much common sense, an eye for detail in picking up omissions in what they've said in response to your appeal. Read other example rebuttals on other threads.

You are looking to knock back everything they are saying including saying the signs are unclear, everything.

System

.... and those pics you have taken help them and not you. Take the pic from the viewpoint of a driver i.e. from a distance. You pics show the signs from the viewpoint of someone who is short sighted.

The wider pic shows the clutter of signs and the difficulty at night in picking out which signs MAY have the information they are relying on. Also there is NO valid contract in their pack. Their either have one - which they need to produce - or they have no authority to be on that site. Spell it out for the adjudicator.



http://i66.tinypic.com/14ca2pl.jpg

FinedIndividual

Just as an update I heard back from POPLA today and I won the appeal!

The POPLA decision here in case it is of use to anyone

Parking Charge Notices issued are done so out of a driver’s obligation to pay parking charges in respect of entering a contract by parking the vehicle on relevant land. Parking Operators are able to transfer this liability from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if it has not been able to identify the driver. If a Parking Operator seeks to transfer liability to the registered keeper, it must ensure it does so in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. In this case, although the driver has not been identified, I cannot see that the operator has made any attempt to transfer the liability to the keeper as the appellant has appealed in response to the notice to driver issued to the vehicle. As a result, I am satisfied in this instance the appellant is appealing the driver’s liability for payment of the Parking Charge Notice, and my decision will reflect this. The appellant states that the PCN is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, it is evident that I must consider whether the signage at the location was sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who may wish to park. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Within its response, the operator has provided a number of photographs documenting the signage at the location and a site map also which documents the signs placed around the car park in question. Based on the evidence provided, I can only conclude that the signage in place at the location is not “conspicuous” or “legible” as required under the BPA Code of Practice and so does not meet the standards outlined by the Supreme Court in that the “wording of the notices” is not sufficiently “clear” to bring the parking charge to the attention of the appellant and other motorists who use this car park. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them. As such, I cannot conclude that the parking charge has been issued correctly.