Popla nightmare

dawn403

Hi everyone,
Not sure if there is a thread that will answer my question but I have looked and couldn't find any information.
I attempted to appeal a parking fine that I received in June, the parking company rejected my appeal and provided me with a POPLA code.

I followed the correct procedure for appealing to POPLA. I received a reply from POPLA stating that the code provided is incorrect and that I should contact the parking company to request a correct POPLA code. I did this and was told by CP plus that it was correct and to contact POPLA again. POPLA then accepted the code stating that they had made an error by telling me it was incorrect and that the appeal would now be processed. I continued to chase POPLA as I was receiving debt collection letters at this point. I was then informed that the case had been closed due to the changeover to the new service and that code was now out of date.

Following heated discussions with the new POPLA service I was told to get in touch with the British Parking Association and they have since obtained a new POPLA code from CP-Plus and I have been told to re-send my appeal.

My question is; is there is a new POPLA appeal template to use?

Also I am now receiving debt collection letters because CP plus have not informed the company what has happened, will these go away when the appeal goes through? or what should I do about them?
Many thanks.

The_Deep

Well, at least it seems that there is little chance of them taking you to court, Keep banging the ball back over the net.

Redx

there are no popla appeal templates on here and never have been (nor IAS appeal templates either)

your best bet is to use a suitable popla appeal from the last few months that has been approved for somebody else, then adapt it for your own use , preferably for the same PPC so its easier than altering PPC names etc

the popla service has changed to the Ombudsman Service so bear that in mind, as any advice given will relate to the old London Councils service

sending it by post with free certificate of posting may be preferable to the online system which is plagued by traps and pitfalls

ignore the debt collector letters, but complain again the the BPA about them , enclosing copies, insist that these should not be sent out whilst a popla appeal is ongoing and tell the BPA to inform the PPC to inform DRP to stop them (to call off the dogs)

Umkomaas

Have a look here for some ideas - but note, some of these are 'old' in the fast moving world of private parking, be careful what you copy and paste.

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

Coupon-mad

Also I am now receiving debt collection letters because CP plus have not informed the company what has happened, will these go away when the appeal goes through? or what should I do about them?

Ignore them.

Show us your draft appeal cobbled together from other examples on here and we'll help.

1st point for POPLA is of course, 'no keeper liability' because CP PLUS don't use POFA notice to keeper letters (as long as you've never said who was driving)!

dawn403

Hi thank you for all your feedback.
i have drafted a response using the other appeals found on here, however I have had to heavily edit all of it as the new POPLA appeal website is very restrictive (it is now compartmentalised into 4 sections and limited to 2000 characters for each heading.) therefore I have copied and pasted the headings and written my appeal to fit into each compartment as seen below. I have also been and taken photos as evidence to support my appeal.
Any more feedback would be gratefully received.


The vehicle was not improperly parked

Please write a short summary of this ground of appeal

The charge is founded entirely on two photos of my vehicle entering/leaving the car park at specific times and the ANPR system is not positioned at the entrance/exit of the car park (Photo 1). I request that CP Plus prove that their ANPR system is not fundamentally flawed because of known issues such as missing checks and maintenance of the timer/cameras and the possibility of two visits being recorded as one. The Operator's proof must show checks relating to my case/my vehicle, not vague statements about any maintenance checks carried out at other times.

The 'two visits recorded as one' problem is common and is mentioned on the BPA website as a known issue. The BPA says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use: Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’.”

These issues also include synchronisation errors, faults with the timer, faults with either one or both cameras, faults with the wireless signals and differences between the settings of the in/out clocks. The operator uses WIFI with an inherent delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever accurate to the minute.

Since I am merely the registered keeper, I have no evidence to discount the above possibilities. This could easily be a case of two visits, or if my vehicle was on site for the time shown, I suggest that it may well not have been 'parked' for more than 2 hours. There are other services on site therefore I put CP Plus to strict proof of actual parking for over two hours with no other petrol station-related activity. CP Plus show no parking photographs so they cannot say for certain that the car was not involved in non-parking related activity - e.g. queuing or filling up with petrol or water, nor can they show the car did not leave the site and return.

The single (tiny!) photographs they have supplied does seem to show the front and rear of my vehicle but with zero clear indication whatsoever of its actual location. How can they demand any charges, without resounding proof that my vehicle was parked on land that they are legally and contractually responsible for? One of their staff could have taken this photograph of the rear of my vehicle anywhere.

I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all nor are they at the entrance/exit of the car park, therefore CP Plus are unable to provide proof that my vehicle was parked

Why do you perceive that the terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed (for example where they blocked, too small, or not showing)?

The signage on the alleged site (Photo2) is inadequate and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed. The British Parking Associations’ Code Of Practice (BPA’s CoP) at Appendix B (version 5 as it applied at the time and date of the alleged parking event) sets out the strict requirements for entrance signage.

The fonts used on the signs are of very small nature, disadvantaging those whose sight is compromised. The signs are not lit or reflective (as per the BPA’s CoP) and are not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen among the myriad clutter of signs, information and architecture in the busy parking area. Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and so prominent that the party 'must' have known of them and agreed. This demonstrates the signs’ general disregard for the text in the BPA’s CoP concerning sign design.
In any case, unless signs are seen and understood before parking, they are not imported into any contract. In a free car park, where the Operator does not own the land (the named principal being the only party capable of offering the spaces and other amenities in the facility), there is no possibility of a contract, since no consideration can flow between a driver and a site agent.
No money/offer/promise/permit or any other tangible nor implied nor executory consideration was capable of being exchanged with CP Plus in this case.

No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal). Lord Denning continued: 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it.


The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct.

The Charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Regulation 5(1) states that:

"A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer"

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
The Charge levied is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, nor is it proportionate or commercially justifiable, and is nothing more than a disguised penalty. This operator must prove the Charge to be a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss that arose directly from the alleged parking event, and not a penalty.

CP Plus’s own appeal rejection letter to me states:
“We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract.”

I argue that CP Plus are making the claim that the Charge is due to a contractual breach and thus the Charge must represent a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss. I have received no proof of how they calculate their Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss and/or how it relates to the amount of the Charge levied in the illegitimate Parking Charge Notice To Keeper. I require CP Plus to explain their calculations behind this charge. £100 is a sum 'plucked out of the air' by the Operator and it bears no relation to any loss and was chosen because it happens to be the maximum figure the BPA feel is a 'tolerable' amount to impose on motorists, in comparison to PCNs issued by Councils. The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ may have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal.

I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.

In order to pursue Keeper Liability under the POFA, CP Plus must have met the strict conditions in the Act. However, they have failed to fulfil the requirements of the “Notice to Keeper” as per Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, on two counts. Para 9(2)(a) states that a notice must: “…specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates” therefore there is no keeper liability.

As the keeper, I have not named the driver of the vehicle or provided a serviceable address for the driver of the vehicle. As the keeper of the vehicle, I can only be held liable for the Parking Charge if the relevant provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been satisfied. The Notice To Keeper (NTK) from CP Plus, fails to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

Firstly, the Notice To Keeper allegedly states the relevant land on which the vehicle was parked as “Poplar 2000”. This purely and simply is totally incorrect! This is not even a valid and fully-formed address and fails to specifically identify the alleged location and/or the land of the supposed parking event and subsequent Charge. This point alone invalidates their Notice To Keeper (NTK) for lacking clear and concise information relating to the alleged parking event eliminating their right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle under Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.


Additional information

In summary, in light of my points above I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on illegitimate notices not adhering to statute, with inaccurate or incomplete information, to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum which is nothing more than a disguised parking penalty with zero relationship to any supposed genuine pre-estimate of losses caused, by a vehicle allegedly parked on land which may or may not be within the legal remit of the operator to manage with signage so poor and so completely out of line with the recommendations of the operators’ trade associations’ CoP.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld, and the charge is dismissed. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

hoohoo

If you want to send a bigger appeal, put it in a word doc and say 'see attached' Done forget to really attach it as it is easy to forget to do hat.

It worked for the prankster.

Fruitcake

Is this a typo?


"I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking."

Guys_Dad

Can you envisage buying a book without chapters or a newspaper without article separations? No matter how good the story, you wouldn't relish reading the words.

Put in numbers,sub headings, summary of points etc as per many successful appeals have done previously.

dawn403

My appeal is responding to their subheadings. Like I said there is only 2000 characters in each box therefore I have had to keep it to the minimum.
I have copied their subheadings onto this thread to give you an idea of the layout on the website. So no there is no typo.

ampersand

Dawn - suggestion below= 2 thorough hrs. iF ok, You fill in the dimensions/estimates where req'd. 1st person largely eliminated.
The downloads ref'd in this PP entry are the ones to scrutinise and quote further if you want to specify parameters.
#
The vehicle was not improperly parked

Please write a short summary of this ground of appeal

Two photos are used to allege reg.no entered and left the car park at specific times, but the ANPR system is not positioned at the entrance/exit of the car park (Photo 1).

CP Plus must prove that their ANPR system was not fundamentally flawed at the time of the alleged parking event. Known issues are missing checks, maintenance of the timer/cameras and the notorious 'double-dipping', when Operators couple the first entry with the final departure, suggesting two visits were one, resulting in alleged 'overstay'.

This problem is so common that the BPA website says: ''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use: Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’.”

All proofs requested of this Operator must show contemporaneous proof relating to this parking event and vehicle, not umbrella statements about unspecified maintenance checks carried out at other times and possibly, other sites.

Synchronisation errors, timer faults, camera fault [ there are 2, remember], wireless signal faults, differences between the settings of the in/out clocks - all are known and acknowledged as error pitfalls for operators.

In addition, inherent delay through WIFI-source buffering means "live" is not really "live". There is simply no trustworthy evidence that an image is ever accurate without a synchronised time stamp.

As registered keeper, I put CP Plus to strict proof of reg.no actually being parked for over two hours, with no other petrol station-related activity. CP Plus show no photographs of the vehicle parked, so cannot prove it was not involved in non-parking related activity - e.g. queuing or filling up with petrol or water - nor can they show the vehicle did not leave the site and return.

Two tiny unclear photographs(give dimensions) purport to show the front and rear of reg.no, but lack all indication of actual location. There is no compliant evidence of the vehicle being parked on land that CP Plus is legally entitled or contractually enabled to patrol or manage.

The ANPR system is not merely unreliable, but breaches compliance requirements further.
A spy camera is placed so high upCOLOR=Red]give sensible estimate[/COLOR that it is far from 'prominent' or 'transparent' and merely used to farm data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit.

Certainly, it is not 'managing, enforcing or controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all. Because there are no cameras at all at the entrance/exit of the actual car park, CP Plus is unable to provide proof that the vehicle was parked on this site.

Why do you perceive that the terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed (for example where they blocked, too small, or not showing)?

The signage on the alleged site is inadequate and was either not seen or not understood by the driver, so no contract could have been formed. The British Parking Associations’ Code Of Practice (BPA’s CoP) at Appendix B (version 5 as it applied at the time and date of the alleged parking event) sets out strict requirements for entrance signage.
Nor are the fonts used on the signs compliant, being very small and disadvantaging those whose sight is compromised. The signs are not lit or reflective (as per the BPA’s CoP) and are not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen among the myriad clutter of signs, information and architecture in the busy parking area.
Terms are imported into a contract only if they are clear and so prominent that the party 'must' have known of them and agreed.

The appellant fails to demonstrate understanding of and compliance with the BPA’s CoP concerning signage.

This causes further failure - unless compliant signage is seen and understood before parking, it is not imported into any contract.

In a free car park, where the Operator does not own the land (the named principal being the only party capable of offering the spaces and other amenities in the facility), there is no possibility of a contract, since no consideration can flow between a driver and a site agent.

No money, no offer, no promise, no permit, nor any other tangible, or implied, or executory consideration was capable of being exchanged with CP Plus in this case.

No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal). Lord Denning continued: 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it.

The amount requested on the parking charge notice is not correct.

The Charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Regulation 5(1) states that:

"A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer"

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
The Charge levied is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss, nor is it proportionate or commercially justifiable, and is nothing more than a disguised penalty. This operator must prove the Charge to be a Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss that arose directly from the alleged parking event, and not a penalty.

CP Plus’s rejection letter to me states:
“We consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge for liquidated damages in respect of a breach of the parking contract.”

Because CP Plus claim that the Charge is due to a contractual breach, this Charge must represent a claimed Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss.

No proof has been submitted showing calculation of their Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss and/or how it relates to the amount of the Charge levied in their unenforceable facsimile invoice, labelled 'Parking Charge Notice To Keeper.'

CP Plus must explain, quantify and justify the calculations behind this charge. £100 is a sum 'plucked out of the air' by the Operator, bearing no relation to any loss and seems to be commonly chosen by companies because it is the maximum figure the BPA feels is a 'tolerable' amount to impose on motorists, compared with Penalty Charge Notices issued by Councils.

The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ‘ParkingEye v Beavis’ may have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal.

I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking.

In order to pursue Keeper Liability under the POFA, CP Plus must have met the strict conditions in the Act. However, they have failed to fulfil the requirements of the “Notice to Keeper” as per Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, on two counts. Para 9(2)(a) states that a notice must: “…specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked, and the period of parking to which the notice relates”, therefore there is no keeper liability.

As vehicle keeper, I have not named the driver of the vehicle or provided a serviceable address for the driver of the vehicle.
As the keeper of the vehicle, I can only be held liable for the Parking Charge if the relevant provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been satisfied. The Notice To Keeper (NTK) from CP Plus, fails to comply with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

Firstly, the Notice To Keeper names the relevant land on which the vehicle was allegedly parked as “Poplar 2000”.
Not only is this incorrect, but is not even a valid and fully-formed address and fails to specifically identify the alleged location and/or the land of the supposed parking event and subsequent Charge.

This point alone invalidates their Notice To Keeper (NTK) for lacking clear and concise information relating to the alleged parking event, eliminating their right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle under Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

Additional information
Any one of the points above is sufficient for this Appeal to be upheld.
In sum, they show complete evidential failure in this claim, which is a penalty.

To reiterate:
- it is wholly unreasonable to rely on inadequate, non-compliant signage not adhering to statute, with inaccurate or incomplete information
- to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum which is nothing more than a disguised parking penalty
- to present an alleged claim with zero relationship to any supposed genuine pre-estimate of losses caused by a vehicle allegedly parked on land which may or may not be within the legal remit of the operator to manage.

It is my respectful request that this appeal is upheld, and the charge dismissed.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Y/f.
[/QUOTE]
#