Parking collection services notice

Hweth

Hi everyone
I've already read the stickies and some other threads aswell.
So situation is that I live in an apartment and the parking in my area is controlled by a private company. My parking permit fell onto the footwear because of wind and I didn't realise. Only found out next day when I was surprised by the fine stuck on my car by car park management
Now spoke to the owner and they said they can't cancel the parking ticket as they use a private company and that I would have to pay. I was really surprised by thinning tried complaining but nothing happened.

So I just ignored the parking fine as I thought I was treated unfairly on the basis that I so have a parking permit.
£60 fine I'd I paid with in 14 days increased to £150 after 28 days. Under the parking fine it says member of bpa, pci dss compliant, pess, ico. Bpa approved operator.

I received the fine on 1st September. Today I received a letter from parking collection services and it says outstanding parking charge notice £110.

On the letter it says
We are writing on behalf of the creditor in relation roman unpaid parking charge. We have obtained your details from dvla under reasonable cause.request as you were a registered keeper of the vehicle specifiednat the time of the parking incident shown. A parking chargers been issued because the vehicle was parked in manner where the drive attractedbabparkjng charges broughtntonthe drivers attentionnvia sineage board agreed to by the driver when the vehicle was parked on private land by the creditor parking enforcement and security services.

A notice to driver providing details of the incident was issued via a parkimgncharge notice that was affixed to the vehicle windscreen....... It then goes on about that had 28 days to pay at a reduced rate and that I didn't pay.

As the charge has not yet been paid in full and we do not hold a record of the drivers name and address. We are writing to you as the keeper of the vehicle. As such we now invite you to make payment of the parking charge shown or ifmyou were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident to notify us in writing acting behalf ofnparking enforcement and security services of the name and current serviceable address of the driver, please also pass this notice to him/her without delay.

If this parking charge remains unpaid after the period of 28 days of this notice and we do not know both the name and the address of the driver. We will have the rightmost recover the charge from you as the keeper of the vehicle. At this stage we may pass your details to our debt recovery company where further costs may be added.

Website parkimgncharge.Co.UK

Should I write one of those letters in sticky threads but I have already gone past the appeal stage or should I just keep ignoring them and hoping that they will give up.
Or did I do the wrong thing by ignoring and should I just pay. I find it unfair how the owner of the private land was so unhelpful. :mad::(

Quentin

You can ignore any debt collectors letters they send.


You can appeal as keeper using the templates.

Castle

Quentin wrote: »

You can ignore any debt collectors letters they send.


You can appeal as keeper using the templates.

The letter from Parking Collection Services, (Trading name of Debt Recovery Plus Ltd), is almost certainly the NTK being issued on behalf of the PPC.

Therefore the OP can appeal as normal and add in that the £110 exceeds the BPA Code of practice and differs from the original NTD; hence the NTK fails to comply with the POFA2012.

Hweth

this is what i have so far... thank you very much for your reply. i do appreciate it

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum is disproportionate, does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term.
b) £110 exceeds the BPA Code of practice and differs from the original NTD; hence the NTK fails to comply with the POFA2012.
c) The sum is extravagant and unconscionable and cannot be justified.
d). There is no evidence that you have any interest in the land. I will complain to the landowner about your aggressive ticketing.
e). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA so there can be no keeper liability.
f). I 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.

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.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.


because this company is a member of bpa. should i include my address and my name at the end of the letter?
thanks

Quentin

Castle wrote: »

The letter from Parking Collection Services, (Trading name of Debt Recovery Plus Ltd), is almost certainly the NTK being issued on behalf of the PPC...

Yes.


But this is why I advised the OP to ignore any debt collectors letters that get sent:

Hweth wrote: »

...we may pass your details to our debt recovery company where further costs may be added....

The_Deep

Also, give the managing agents hell. Tell them that the PPC are employed either by them of the landowner, to assist residents, not to harass them, and that if they do not cancel it you shall be seeking legal advice as to whether their disturbance of your "quiet enjoyment" of your property under the terms of your lease/AST does not breach your legal right under the Landlord and Tenants Act.


Cut out the bit about breach of CCRs, there is almost certainly no contract between you and the PPC.

Quentin

Hweth wrote: »

....
because this company is a member of bpa. should i include my address and my name at the end of the letter?....

Yes, you can safely give your details as keeper, though obviously don't give away the driver's details!

Hweth

my lease doesn't mention anything about parking. For parking we just have to go to reception and pay for the parking permit. so I paid for the whole year in one go

Coupon-mad

Easy one, just as per the NEWBIES thread.

That's a badly worded version of a NTK so appeal it as keeper, don't say who was driving & await the POPLA code in a rejection letter. Then come back and research POPLA appeals here (or start reading some recent examples now). The PCS letter is not compliant with POFA 2012 so the wording can be argued at POPLA stage not to be capable of establishing keeper liability - hence why you always appeal as keeper.

Coupon-mad

Easy one, just appeal it as keeper, don't say who was driving & await the POPLA code in a rejection letter. Then come back and research POPLA appeals here (or start reading some recent examples now). The PCS letter is not compliant with POFA 2012 so the wording can be argued at POPLA stage not to be capable of establishing keeper liability - hence why you always appeal as keeper.

Hweth

I received a letter today where they have given me a popla code for appeal. Now, I don't know where to start from. They have also sent me bunch of pictures which shows that there was no parking permit (I do have a permit, it just got blown away) in ht pictures, it also shows signage ... theres one right next to my car also one few bays behind my car


i have also attached a picture of one of the sign. they have reduced my fine to £60 if i say within 14 days otherwise it will go back up to £100... i have looked at different popla appeal templates. but I'm really stuck. i have no idea how to make a good appeal.


RE: POPLA CODE- XXXXXXXXXX

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Operator: parking collection servies

I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for parking without a valid permit. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No landowner contract assigning rights to PCS to enforce contracts with drivers
3. No contract formed by the signage

1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, because the car had a permit very obviously on the side window ; no doubt the employee saw it and carefully avoided taking a photograph of it. Also, no 'PCN' was present on the vehicle at all - it was only a month later when I received a postal Notice that I realised the car had apparently had a notorious 'fake PCN' from PCS. A photo from PCS shows a yellow envelope on the windscreen but this was presumably then removed by the employee to avoid confrontation, because it wasn't there when the driver returned.

In any case, the Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event. I require the Operator to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd 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''.

In this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to pursue, and they certainly cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage. The same is true of the parking attendant who is already paid to visit sites and take photos & issue PCNs, and is not significantly diverted from this activity when a car is considered to be parked in breach.

Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:

"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’

POPLA Senior Assessor Chris Adamson stated on 3rd December 2014 in POPLA decision Reference 6862654003 which is relevant as it is a permit case:

''there is no dispute that the Appellant did in fact possess a permit. Permits are not analogous with pay and display tickets which are bought for an individual stay and represent proof of purchase. In this case the Appellant was a permit holder and so there was no loss in relation to the permit. The Operator has provided no other evidence of any initial loss.''

and also the same Assessor has summed up many decisions thus:

''the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''


2. No contract assigning rights to the Operator to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that the Operator does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require the Operator to supply:

• I require that the Operator demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that this Operator can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.


3. No contract formed by the signage
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. There is a lack of entrance signage at no point was I aware of the risk of a punitive charge.

Neither do the signs state in clear terms how to display a permit. There was no breach since the permit was visible clearly through the rear window of the car as it was displayed on the parcelshelf.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform the Operator to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,


XXXXXXXXXXX