Conflicting Messages

Tracal

Thanks I have now ticked 3 boxes out of the 4 :-)

I am not brave enough to appeal on a single point and I really do appreciate what you knowledgeable people have to say, but I may add in the fact that the charge was cancelled once as an extra point for consideration.

I will go and work on it now and then will put it on here minus personal information for people to skim read before I submit it .... thank you xx

Tracal

Here is my draft POPLA appeal for comments:-

Reasons for appealing:- Firstly I believe it to be a non compliant NTK as the vehicle was photographed on the 02/06/2015 and the original notice from Highview Parking was sent on 15/06/2015. Once received this would fall outside of the 14 days contact window.

Secondly, the sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. The charge is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified. The charge is 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.

I also believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.

I also question the accuracy of the anpr system in place.

Highview Parking add confusion by sending registered owners conflicting email messages once they appeal. I am in receipt of two emails from them regarding the outcome of my appeal. The emails were sent within one minute of each other; the first stating that they had cancelled the notice in full, with the second email stating that the charge was still standing and offering me the opportunity to appeal to POPLA.

Copies of my original appeal to Highview Parking and my emails can be sent as evidence if needed.

Thank you.

(Is this ok to submit?)

System

Also add that the cameras are reportedly directed to the highway and as such are not recording parking but the time from the highway to the parking space. In addition, recording on the highway via ANPR is unlawful.

Have a word with your local CAB too. Its reported they are getting them cancelled without having to appeal but do both.

Hot_Bring

"Highview Parking add confusion by sending registered owners conflicting email messages once they appeal. I am in receipt of two emails from them regarding the outcome of my appeal. The emails were sent within one minute of each other; the first stating that they had cancelled the notice in full, with the second email stating that the charge was still standing and offering me the opportunity to appeal to POPLA."

Nope - this sounds like you're trying to use mitigating circumstances.

Instead use the following ( and make it your FIRST point ).

Highview have actually already cancelled this charge but have decided to still pursue the keeper. As the charge has been cancelled the charge must therefore be invalid. The keeper has attached evidence in the form of an email showing Highview cancelling the original charge. Nowhere in the alleged contract or terms and conditions does it state that a charge can be re-opened once cancelled. Highview should provide strict evidence that the alleged contract allows this action to happen.

The_Deep

Personally, I prefer OP's version, far clearer and I see no mitigation, just the facts.

Guys_Dad

I question whether you can write " extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified. " when the last court to judge on this took the opposite view. Until the Supreme Court overturn that, then I would avoid that wording.

Tracal

Thank you for all your help there, some very good pointers to keep me on track and to get my appeal submitted in the best possible way :-)

Tracal

Just for the record this is the final version that I submitted to POPLA. I did try to take on board as many of the comments you all gave me that I could, and I also have to say that without the help from this forum and its members I would have been in a right pickle. The way you guys word things and the terminology you use seemed like a whole different language to me until I finally got my head around it all and gained some form of understanding (still not to the level of half of you though). Thanks again and hopefully, I will get a good result from all of this and your hard work will be rewarded :-) :-) :-)

"Firstly I believe it to be a non compliant NTK as the vehicle was photographed on the 02/06/2015 and the original notice from Highview Parking was sent on 15/06/2015. Once received this would fall outside of the 14 days contact window.

Secondly, Highview have actually already cancelled this charge but have decided to still pursue the keeper and as the charge has already been cancelled the charge must therefore be invalid. . I am in receipt of two emails regarding the outcome of the appeal. The emails were sent within one minute of each other; the first stating that they had cancelled the notice in full, with the second email stating that the charge was still standing and offering the opportunity to appeal to POPLA. Nowhere in the alleged contract or terms and conditions does it state that a charge can be re-opened once cancelled. Highview should provide strict evidence that the alleged contract allows this action to happen.

The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. The charge is 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.

I also believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.

I also question the accuracy of the anpr system in place. The cameras are reportedly directed to the highway and as such are not recording parking but the time from the highway to the parking space. In addition, recording on the highway via ANPR is unlawful.

Copies of the original appeal to Highview Parking and their email replies from can be sent as evidence if needed".

This has been submitted now and I can not change it, so I hope you all think it is ok :-)

hoohoo

You can change this at any time up to the assessment has taken place.

You must file the cancellation email as evidence. POPLA wont ask you for it.

You should also state explicitly that keeper liability does not apply as the NTK was received too late

Fruitcake

Tracal wrote: »

Just for the record this is the final version that I submitted to POPLA. I did try to take on board as many of the comments you all gave me that I could, and I also have to say that without the help from this forum and its members I would have been in a right pickle. The way you guys word things and the terminology you use seemed like a whole different language to me until I finally got my head around it all and gained some form of understanding (still not to the level of half of you though). Thanks again and hopefully, I will get a good result from all of this and your hard work will be rewarded :-) :-) :-)

"Firstly I believe it to be a non compliant NTK as the vehicle was photographed on the 02/06/2015 and the original notice from Highview Parking was sent on 15/06/2015. Once received this would fall outside of the 14 days contact window.

Secondly, Highview have actually already cancelled this charge but have decided to still pursue the keeper and as the charge has already been cancelled the charge must therefore be invalid. . I am in receipt of two emails regarding the outcome of the appeal. The emails were sent within one minute of each other; the first stating that they had cancelled the notice in full, with the second email stating that the charge was still standing and offering the opportunity to appeal to POPLA. Nowhere in the alleged contract or terms and conditions does it state that a charge can be re-opened once cancelled. Highview should provide strict evidence that the alleged contract allows this action to happen.

The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. The charge is 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.

I also believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the predominant purpose is to deter so there is no contract to pay this charge, which is a penalty.

I also question the accuracy of the anpr system in place. The cameras are reportedly directed to the highway and as such are not recording parking but the time from the highway to the parking space. In addition, recording on the highway via ANPR is unlawful.

Copies of the original appeal to Highview Parking and their email replies from can be sent as evidence if needed".

This has been submitted now and I can not change it, so I hope you all think it is ok :-)

I wouldn't mention the second email to PoPLA, only the first one cancelling the ticket. Don't give the PPC the opportunity to claim an administration error occurred and the rejection email is the correct one.