Serious help needed with Private PCN

Guys_Dad

Received a PCN through the post? Is it a Notice to Keeper or what exactly does it say at the top?

I am willing to bet it won't be POFA compliant and you can check this for yourself here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_-_V4,_Feb_2014.pdf Page 30 onwards has the relevant sections from POFA 2012.

On page 32, section 9 gives the mandatory items that must be on the notice.

It can't be a notice to driver as POFA states that
(4) The notice (to driver)must be given:
(a) before the vehicle is removed from the relevant
land after the end of the period of parking to
which the notice relates, and
(b) while the vehicle is stationary, by affixing it to the
vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to
be in charge of the vehicle - see section 7 .

Mr_Reality

It is entitled 'Parking Charge Notice'.

Mr_Reality

Is this correct then? that the car has to stationary for the PCN to be issued and valid? elsewhere i read that it can be posted if the vehicle was driven away before the PCN could be issued? it doesn't seem very clear to me. it also appears that my main refusal to pay is a.) disproportionate fee b.) i don't know who the driver is. Is that correct?

Mr_Reality

Ok; got a rejection letter along with my Popla code. We are going to POPLA apeal but website looks changed from before, there does not seem to be crieterias here for us to state my arguments effectivily ie 1) disporporiante fee b) We asked for specific documentation to show that that the operator had a contract with the landowner 3) unidentified driver. i think i read a while back someone saying to send it by post instead of online. Is this the new advise?

Redx

read this weeks parking prankster blog on the new popla appeals system

DollyDee_2

Per Bazter :

"The website is deeply dodgy, from the garbage T&C's you are expected to sign up to, through the London Councils-style highly-restrictive appeal grounds, to the completely OTT multiple-choice rigmarole which is clearly designed to reinforce the restrictive grounds of appeal and deter appeals on winning "technical" grounds.

My advice would be for appellants to ignore the website and submit postal appeals:

POPLA, PO Box 1270, Warrington WA4 9RL"

You can send by post - get free certificate of posting from Post Office.

Mr_Reality

Thank you i think i will go that route by post adding the beavis case hold situation too.

Ralph-y

Parkies page / blog

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process.html

Ralph:cool:

Mr_Reality

Ok, just got my evidence pack from POPLA. I need to prepare my reply to this (given me 14 days) not sure yet what to say or include. Any suggestions? the following is what i sent to POPLA in my appeal - (apologies for all the post i had to do this in segments)

Mr_Reality

Dear POPLA Assessor,

parking charge notice XXXXX
POPLA refXXXXXXX

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds;

1) No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss
2) Contract with Landowner
3) Inadequate Signage
4) Non compliant Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under POFA 2012

1) a) The Charge is not a contractual fee – it is a disguised breach

The Operator has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre estimate of loss by stating that this is a contractually agreed fee on their signage. However on the parking charge notice (which is described as exactly that, NOT an invoice for an agreed fee) it states that the driver bcame liable for a parking charge. In addition, the wording on their sign also states that "PCN will be issued manually or by post".

The charge must be either for damages or a fee paid for parking (consideration) it cannot be for both and in order for it to be consideration, it would have to mean that permission to park without a permit was given providing a fee was paid. Clearly permission to "park in breach" cannot be granted and we therefore submit that it is clear that the amount sought is for parking in breach and that the amount represents liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

We would like to highlight a similar appeal against CPM where POPLA assessor Marina Kapour found that

"The charge must either be for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or for consideration - the price paid for the parking as submitted by the Operator. In order for the charge to be consideration, the parking charge must be paid in return for something, here permission to park. In other words, the sign must permit the motorist to park provided he or she pay the charge. Clearly, permission to park 'in breach' is not granted, and so the parking charge cannot be a contractual price. Instead, it is clear that the charge is in fact a sum sought as damages, and therefore must be a genuine pre estimate of the loss which may be caused by the parking breach. I find it seems clear that the signs in this car park do not give permission to park in return for the parking charge and so it cannot be consideration".

I contend that the same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee but is a disguised breach and must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss to be enforceable.

b) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss

The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely “parking in no parking area” consequently I contend, and the BPA code of practise states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA 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.

On the day in question, there was no damage nor obstruction caused (nor is any being alleged) and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.

The alleged driver (whomever that may have been on the day) was parked on land that states “no parking”; therefore the PCN cannot be a parking charge notice. Furthermore the registered keeper has requested evidence of contract for the alleged area of paving in question from Premier Park which to this date has not been forthcoming.