Appeal rejected, POPLA?

hassom

So I parked on the roadway at work. I have parked several times there before, parking attendants have said if no parking is available we are allowed to park on the roadway. All this info was sent to UKPC but appeal was rejected. I have images of previous people parking on the roadway and have got away with it, the car next to mine did not have a parking fine.

My question is do I appeal to POPLA if so what on earth do I say?

Thank you

The_Deep

Read the stickies. everything you need to know, (and a lot you don't), is there.

hassom

The_Deep wrote: »

Read the stickies. everything you need to know, (and a lot you don't), is there.

Thanks, can I post my appeal letter before I submit it?

The_Deep

Yes please.

hassom

any templates I can use? Did do a quick search but nothing seems to pop up.

Umkomaas

hassom wrote: »

any templates I can use? Did do a quick search but nothing seems to pop up.

No standard template as such, but your appeal needs to cover the following:

1. No keeper liability (but you need to check the NtK for correct dates and all requirements of PoFA have been included) - see here:
http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
4. No proprietary interest in the land
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy (if appropriate)
7. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)

Read very carefully post # 3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky - it contains information important to your appeal.

There are plenty of examples of winning POPLA appeals across the forum; here are a couple of links for you to follow and research:

How to win at POPLA:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62180281&postcount=15

Some of the appeals linked here are now becoming a little dated, so be careful to use one of the more recent ones as your guide to framing your own.

Please don't do a 'copy and dump' of the first thing that looks 'legal' enough, then expect regulars to pick it apart and amend it all for you. We won't do that, so you need to understand what you're copying, you need to proof read it and make sure any references you make (Beavis in particular) are up to date, and everything relates broadly to your parking event.

POPLA Decisions:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Read from the most recent backwards to get a feel for the appeal points on which POPLA Assessors are currently upholding appeals.

hassom

Is this ok? I have 2 days to appeal!


Dear POPLA,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. I wish to appeal against the notice on the following grounds.

1) Lack of BPA compliant signage
The dyslexic and dyspraxia driver entered the car park, and parked on the roadway, signage can be seen this is from one side of the road and not the other. A driver who is dyslexic and has dyspraxia this makes matters much worse.

Signage- The colours blue and yellow are specifically mentioned in the BPA Code of Practice as the sort of bright colour contrasts to avoid. Use of capital letters and mixing large and small font are also deemed unclear as far as signage is concerned. UKPC have mixed this into their signs despite the fact they appear to be new and should match the requirements of the BPA CoP.

According to BPA a warning to drivers must be given if a delay payment beyond a payment period of 28 days must be visible on the signage, again this is not started on UKPC signage. Also, at least one signage should be visible for disabled drivers, this is not visible.

2) The driver had verbal permission from UKPC to park from the employee, so with no signs seen, this was the only contract formed.

The UKPC employee spoke to the driver and showed them where to park, which was an area where no signs could be seen from one site (see photos). Cars are always parked on the “roadway”, the car next to mine did not have a ticket when this was only on the roadway.

This was the only possible contract between UKPC and the driver, who parked with clear verbal permission (albeit from an employee who then placed a ticket on the windscreen unbeknown to the driver) The UKCPS employee was still there when the driver returned and spoke to her again, so there was no possibility that the ticket could have been served properly, or removed by an unknown person, as the UKPC employee was there all the time.

3) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The charge demanded far exceeds any loss to the landowner. If it exceeds any loss, it becomes a penalty.

In the appeal, UKPC did not address this issue, and has not explained whether their charge is relating to a breach of terms, or trespass, or contract (all of which are denied).

Further, I contend that the UKPC employee deceived the driver about any need to pay, which would have mitigated any loss, preferring instead to issue a parking ticket. In Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) -v- Mr Ronald Ibbotson (Case Reference 1SE09849 May 2012) District Judge McIlwaine reminded the Operator of the need to mitigate any loss in circumstances where the employee is near enough to observe the driver.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss. My permit was clearly visible to the parking attendant.

4) Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner

UKPC lack of title or assigned interest in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do they have the legal status at that site, which would give them any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as they are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner. The landowner is ‘Crabtree’ a property management firm. Which, in the past has cancelled tickets from UKPC.

5) The Notice to Keeper was not properly issued
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 on three counts.
- Firstly, it fails to state the period of parking: paragraph 8(2)(a)
- Secondly, it fails to identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made: paragraph 8(2)(h)
- Thirdly, it fails to inform the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available: paragraph 8(2)(g). This must include:
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.

In a flagrant disregard for the POPLA rights of appeal available to myself as the registered keeper, the section 'Appeals Procedures' wholly misleads the recipient. It wrongly informs me that I can only now appeal if the vehicle was stolen.

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.

6) Misleading business practices - breach of CPUTR 2008
UKPC have breached the CPUTR 2008 on two counts.

The 'warden' on site misled the driver by specifically telling the driver that he could park in that space and would not get a parking ticket. And the NTK misled the registered keeper (myself) by stating that I could only make an appeal if the vehicle had been stolen.

It is an unfair trading practice, to mislead, misinform and/or hide core terms which would have caused a consumer to make a different economic decision. POPLA has a duty to make its decisions taking into account any relevant law.


yours faithfully,

hassom

anyone? appealing is running out in 2 days

Herzlos

Looks good, go for it.

hassom

Herzlos wrote: »

Looks good, go for it.

anything missing etc?

Herzlos

I don't see anything missing, just submit it.