Parking collection services notice

Redx

tell us who the actual parking company is (its not PCS)

it would help if you called it by its proper name, an invoice, not the slang word "fine"

its definitely not a fine

I suggest you find recent 2015 examples of popla appeals that involve private parking and permits etc (there are no popla templates on here, only examples of previous appeals)

the appeal also needs to include

POFA2012 non-compliance

as well as

no contract (this is between the PPC and landowner, not PCS - I believe PCS is the debt collector , not your actual private parking company) - so identify the Parking Company, not the debt collector

poor and non-compliant signage

not a gpeol (subject to the outcome of the Beavis case)

Hweth

on the parking notice it is pessuk. I'm guessing that the name of the company.

RE: POPLA CODE- XXXXXXXXXX

Parking Charge Number (PCN): XXXXXXXX
Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Operator: pessuk

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
4. Invoice amount differs on website to what is on the letter
5. Does not comply withPODA 2012

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 right window near the front.

4. Letter dates 14/10/2015 states that PCM at the prevailing sum of £60 by 28/10/2015. Please note that after the time the discounted rate will no longer apply and the amount outstanding will rise to £100.00 and will need to be paid by 11/11/2015. Parkingcsl website shows that the amount owed is £110. I do not understand where the amount £110 came from due to this the PCM was issues in an unauthorised manner. This also refers back to point 1 pre-estimate of loss. £110 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is against the BPA rules.

5. PCN does not comply with POFA 2012
Section 9.2(b) - inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; I do not believe this has been complied with
Section 9.2(e) - state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver... I do not believe this has been complied with
Section 9.2e - ...and invite the keeper—(i) ... (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; I do not believe this has been complied with.


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

Yours faithfully,


XXXXXXXXXXX



I've added point 4 and 5. does popla allow us to add screen shots? because I've taken a screenshot of the page where it says i owe £110.

thanks

enfield_freddy

right another low life using PCS as there back office http://www.pessuk.com/page.php?id=33 , I think they have shot themselves in the foot


the first written (posted) communication came from PCS , pretending to be a NTK , it advised you to appeal to them , not the parking company , however the first letter asks for £110 , very naughty and illegal


the BPA will tell you bull , saying the PPC must only charge £100 max , but a debt collection company can charge more , however in this case PCS are acting as the PPCs agent and back office , not as a debt collection company

Hweth

hopefully it will get all sorted...
Is my template all good to go? do i have any chances of winning?

enfield_freddy

however sorting out by the BPA , would stop them in there tracks and protect other people.


this is a "one stop" setup , not intended by the government when POFa was drawn up.