Do I stand a chance?

ampersand

Suggestion -
#
Your ref: (Enter PCN number)

To Whom It May Concern

Dear Sir/Madam,

As keeper of [reg.no] I am writing to advise that no money is owed in relation to Parking Charge Notice xxxxx.

1.) Your facsimile invoice fails to comply with the POFA.

There is no keeper liability, as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies only to parking incidents. By your own admission, your unenforceable invoice has been raised in relation to a Stopping/Waiting incident. Furthermore, ??by stating in your paperwork??[quote/substantiate] that the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 applies[with regard to what?], you have incorrectly stated your position with regards to I]?keeper?[/I liability, an offence notifiable to Trading Standards.

3) Inadequate and non-compliant signage.

Signage at this site is inadequate to create a contract. No compliant signage is visible before entry, nor after parking a vehicle at night. Any allegedly contemporaneous signage is neither illuminated nor prominent, therefore incapable of being read in the dark. On this basis, no consideration or decision to engage in any contract with your private parking company arising from this parking event was possible.

The keeper has now been put to the trouble and expense of investigating the site in daylight hours.

The sign at the entrance to the car park is multi-coloured, non-reflective, unlit and on the floor of the car park.
2 pictures of [reg.no.], taken 3 minutes apart at night, allegedly by a Park Direct operative, do not constitute either evidence, or acceptance, implied or otherwise, of any contract.
To repeat, no signage, even of this non-compliant kind, is visible at night.

4) Covert ticketing operation: BPA CoP transgression

It would appear that a 'parking attendant' used an ordinary hand-held camera/phone to take photographs.
No windscreen PCN was issued.
It is not acceptable that any employee of a private parking company covertly photographs any vehicle without making themselves known as such, or presenting such proof for inspection if requested.
No such introduction occurrred.
As both 'parking event' images appear to have been taken from some distance, estimate [op- can you insert sensible est.?], no other conclusion is credible.

According to the British Parking Associations Codes of practice, the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition is the only photographic evidence admissible for issuing a Notice to Keeper.
Park Direct's pictures appear not to have been obtained using automatic number plate recognition. Furthermore, ANPR views of a vehicle must show both front and back number plates, suggesting unfamiliarity with BPA requirements.

5) The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (and is unconscionable under the circumstances), nor is it a contractual sum as you fail to indicate how it can be contractually owed.
£100, including any '£60 discount', does not equate to any sort of loss to the B]unidentified[/B landowner, for a vehicle allegedly present for only 3 minutes. The area was all but deserted. Obstruction was never an issue. This 'parking charge notice' cannot be construed as anything but a punitive monetised penalty.

I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, a duty which your staff member failed to observe in the first instance. Kindly withdraw your spurious charge within 35 days and I will not pursue you for my costs.

Please take full note of the following:
As keeper, I require you to cancel the ticket or provide access to a means of resolution in substantive compliance with the Alternative Resolution of Disputes Regulations.

Proof of submission for this appeal has been kept and I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,
S10000
[squiggle signature]
[Your address]
###
Let others comment first.
Also, lose the all 1st person giveaways as to who was 'perhaps' ;-)driving - and location - from #1.
OK?
#
Edit post-GD #13, with which I largely agree.
[Computer all but unusable now. Will try and check back later]

Guys_Dad

s100000 wrote: »

Your ref: (Enter PCN number)
Dear PD,

As the keeper of the vehicle xxxxxx I am writing to you regarding the Parking Charge Notice xxxxx.
As the keeper, I refute that any money is owed to yourselves.

1) The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate loss (and is unconscionable under the circumstances) nor is it a contractual sum as you have not indicated how it could be contractually owed. The £100, including the £60 discount charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner as the driver only stopped for 5 minutes. Must have been a very short film. Why add this as by your own admission it isn't true? .
The area was certainly quiet and no other vehicles were obstructed for the duration. Therefore the parking charge and the parking charge notice cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty

2) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability. There is no Keeper Liability as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 only applies to parking incidents, and by your own admission, your parking charge notice has been raised in relation to a Stopping/Waiting incident. What is stopping for 5 minutes if not parking? Furthermore, by stating that Protection of Freedom Act 2012 applies in your paperwork means that you have incorrectly stated your legal position with regards to liability, and I am considering reporting this matter to Trading Standards. Don't understand this at all

3) Your signage is inadequate to create a contract it is also not illuminated making a stranger to the site unaware you wished them to engage in a contract with yourselves, the driver did not see any signage before or after parking the car. Furthermore, the Signage is incapable of being read in the dark – therefore there was no contract with driver.
Would help with photographic evidence and sort out your sentences properly in the preceding para

The sign at the entrance to the car park is multi-coloured, non-reflective, unlit and on the floor of the car park. the photographic evidence provided cannot be corroborated as evidence that the driver breached any contract on that day.. The sign was not seen by the driver and would have been invisible in the dark

4) Covert ticketing operation not BPA CoP compliant.
It would appear that the 'parking attendant' used a handheld ordinary camera/phone to take photographs and there was no windscreen PCN issued so the driver had no idea of any contract nor any alleged breach. I do not believe that the person was wearing any kind of uniform or ID showing they are involved with 'parking enforcement' while the parking attendant proceeded to secretly take photos of the vehicle without making themselves known to the driver, as evidenced by the fact the images are all taken at a distance
The use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition for Notice to Keeper cases, is the only photographic evidence you can use according to the British Parking Associations Codes of practice and from the pictures raised on the parking charge notice, you can clearly see that the use of automatic number plate recognition is absent, furthermore a front and back view of the car is supposed to be used, suggesting bad practice on your part. This is a load of nonsense.

Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I will only appeal further if you offer POPLA, the only independent ADR with a scrutiny panel and trained Assessors. The 'IAS' offered by IPC firms will not be used, for well-documented reasons.

''Drop hands'' offer
The charge is baseless but I realise that you may have nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs for responding to your junk mail dressed up to mimic a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15 so this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days and I will not pursue you for my costs.


Breach of CCRs
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered nor expressly agreed. This 'contract' is cancelled and any obligations now end.

As the keeper, I require you to cancel the ticket or provide access to a means of resolution in substantive compliance with the alternative resolution of disputes regulations.


This lot in blue is a complete waste of time from a previous era.
Proof of submission for this appeal has been kept and I look forward to your reply.


Yours Sincerely
S10000

Hows this? It will be 21 days tomorrow so I want to get this sent to them before Monday.

You can see my comments.

GPEOL is now under a Supreme Court case (Beavis) and where is the "No Contract with landowner" important appeal point?

ampersand

http://i59.tinypic.com/2im57qg.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/2gvmtyb.jpg
#
These are not working here, altho' 'parking pics' shows as tinypic title. All too likely to be due to & being in notorious notspot[now with added keyboard white-outs, as f.o.c. extra :-)]
#
GD - didn't hit for unredacted contemporaneous landholder/PD contract proof at this 1st rebuttal stage. You think 'include immediately'?

s100000

ampersand wrote: »

hxxp://i59.tinypic.com/2im57qg.jpg

hxxp://i59.tinypic.com/2gvmtyb.jpg
#
These are not working here, altho' 'parking pics' shows as tinypic title. All too likely to be due to & being in notorious notspot[now with added keyboard white-outs, as f.o.c. extra :-)]
#
GD - didn't hit for unredacted contemporaneous landholder/PD contract proof at this 1st rebuttal stage. You think 'include immediately'?

hey ampersand, thank your for input its helping me a lot:j

I do think its because of notspot (you mean wifi on your phone?) As the pictures are definitely on tinypic and showing.

In regards to GuysDad, Im now a little confused as to whether to include the point they made. As you rightly said, this is the 1st stage and not popla (yet).

I will await other peoples responses on here and will try to edit the appeal from your post, along with GuysDads' points.

ampersand

Notspot is The Deadly Disease here....Fens.
Phones? What be they? Very occasional workings, sporadic at best.
This is Best Desktop! :-)

s100000

post deletd

Fruitcake

s100000 wrote: »

I just wanted to add that the car belongs to my mum, I didn't realise that this could affect my appeal to PD. Well does it? Im still planning on appealing, with my mum as the RK.

Your Mum is the RK, you are "the keeper" as you were keeper of the car on the day in question. So, you can appeal as keeper or on behalf of your Mum (as if she was appealing) as registered keeper. Never appeal as driver unless this was a hire/lease car. Not relevant in this instance.


Never use a legible signature, just type your or your Mum's name and put a squiggle underneath it if appealing by post.
... and if by post, send it first class from a Post Office and get a free proof of posting certificate. Never send it recorded delivery because these scammers might decline it and then have proof that they didn't receive it.

s100000

haha sorry I took long been very busy. Ive updated your letter including changes from GD. If your on your pc help me please I have a few days left now before its 28.

As keeper of [reg.no] I am writing to advise that no money is owed in relation to Parking Charge Notice xxxxx.

1.) Your facsimile invoice fails to comply with the POFA.


There is no keeper liability, as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 applies only when the Notice to keeper includes all the relevant details for it to be regarded as compliant. The notice sent to the registered keeper fails on a number of grounds with regards to POFA 2012. ????????????????? Does this make sense should I include the 2 points Ive written on page 2?

2) Inadequate and non-compliant signage.


Signage at this site is inadequate to create a contract. No compliant signage is visible before entry, nor after parking a vehicle at night. Any allegedly contemporaneous signage is neither illuminated nor prominent, therefore incapable of being read in the dark. On this basis, no consideration or decision to engage in any contract with your private parking company arising from this parking event was possible.

The keeper has now been put to the trouble and expense of investigating the site in daylight hours.

The sign at the entrance to the car park is multi-coloured, non-reflective, unlit and on the floor of the car park.
2 pictures of [reg.no.], taken 3 minutes apart at night, allegedly by a Park Direct operative, do not constitute either evidence, or acceptance, implied or otherwise, of any contract.
To repeat, no signage, even of this non-compliant kind, is visible at night.

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

The amount demanded is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss (and is unconscionable under the circumstances), nor is it a contractual sum as you fail to indicate how it can be contractually owed.

The £100 you state, including any '£60 discount', does not equate to any sort of loss to the [unidentified] landowner, for a vehicle allegedly present from your photographs for only 3 minutes. The area was all but deserted. Obstruction was never an issue. This 'parking charge notice' cannot be construed as anything but a punitive monetised penalty.

4) Contract with landowner - no locus standing


I believe you do not own, nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that you have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow you - Park Direct, to pursue these charges in your own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

4) Contract with landowner


I believe you do not have or lack title or assigned interest in this land, which means that you have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. Nor do you have the legal status at that site, which would give you any right to offer parking spaces on a contractual basis, as you are not the landowner and I have seen no evidence of a compliant contract with the landowner.

I put you- ParkDirectUK, to strict proof that you have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles you to pursue these charges in the courts in your own name as creditor.

According to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contain the following:
7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

5) Covert ticketing operation: BPA CoP transgression


It would appear that a 'parking attendant' used an ordinary hand-held camera/phone to take photographs.
No windscreen PCN was issued.
It is not acceptable that any employee of a private parking company covertly photographs any vehicle without making themselves known as such, or presenting such proof for inspection if requested.
No such introduction occurrred.
As both 'parking event' images appear to have been taken from some distance, an estimate of about 5 feet, no other conclusion is credible.

According to the British Parking Associations Codes of practice, the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition is the only photographic evidence admissible for issuing a Notice to Keeper.
Park Direct's pictures appear not to have been obtained using automatic number plate recognition. Furthermore, ANPR views of a vehicle must show both front and back number plates, suggesting unfamiliarity with BPA requirements
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'.

You have failed to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. You have not made any clear signage on arrival to the site in question, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent'. ADDED THIS IN

I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, a duty which your staff member failed to observe in the first instance. Kindly withdraw your spurious charge within 35 days and I will not pursue you for my costs.

Please take full note of the following:
As keeper, I require you to cancel the ticket or provide access to a means of resolution in substantive compliance with the Alternative Resolution of Disputes Regulations.

Proof of submission for this appeal has been kept and I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,
S10000

Edit: I have added in 2 similar paragraphs for point 4, which one would be more stronger?

Fruitcake

Your numbering needs sorting out.


You have some double negatives.


I have reasonable doubt that you do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.


You doubt they do not own, in other words you do not doubt that they do own.


I think it should be something like: I believe you do not own ...


Likewise,


I have reason to doubt that you – ParkDirectUK, have a lack of title or assigned interest in this land,


You doubt they have lack of title, in other words you do not doubt they do have title.


I think it should read something like: I believe you do not have title, or I put you to strict proof that you do have title ...

s100000