Hospital Red Route Parking Ticket (POPLA letter check)

Johno100

Castle wrote: »

Second point: who is CPP?

Car Parking Partnership at a guess.

Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

Car Parking Partnership at a guess.

Thanks, but the OP mentioned Legion Group hence the confusion!

shewdz

checked with the council and there are no traffic regulation orders in the area my other half got her ticket.

shewdz

Castle wrote: »

Thanks, but the OP mentioned Legion Group hence the confusion!

sorry CPP should have been changed. this dispute is with legion group

shewdz

could it be a breach of "contract" that my other half has paid for a staff parking permit, but there were no staff parking spaces available?

shewdz

Can anyone have a quick look over the popla appeal letter i have put together. any feedback would be much appreciated.

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I received a parking charge notice from Legion Group on 20/10/15 for a parking charge of £70, with subsequent appeal rejection issued on 17/11/15 for a breach of contractual terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle.
I have denied all liability to Legion Group. Following rejection of my submission I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1. The parking charge of £70 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. Legion Group have no proprietary interest in the land and no standing.
3. Unlawful Penalty Charge

Detailed submission

1. The parking charge of £70 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge should compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges.

In this instance, unpaid charges are nil as a valid staff parking permit (No. xxxx) was on show for the vehicle. Any breakdown purporting to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss cannot include general business expenses because these would remain the same whether or not there were any alleged breaches of contract by drivers.

2. It is my belief that Legion Group have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. In the absence of such title, Legion Group must have specific contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges in the courts, and to make contracts with drivers. I do not believe such a document is in existence. I therefore put Legion Group to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges. In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 7, This must include assignment of the right for Legion Group to make contracts with drivers and for Legion Group to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'witness Statement' or 'site agreement' will be insufficient to provide all the required information set out in 7.1 and 7.2 and I put Legion Group to strict proof that their contract covers every point in this section of the BPA CoP.

3. Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This was the case in several compelling and comparable Court decisions such as UKCPS v Murphy April 2012 (a case involving a disabled bay and no Blue Badge, where the 'Parking Charge' was found to be a penalty). Also Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011).

The BPA Ltd (seeking advice on behalf of all AOS members, including Legion Group) was warned about such charges being unenforceable by the Office of Fair Trading in 2013. The information that the Office of Fair Trading gave to the BPA Ltd on parking charges expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for “parked on a red route” under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings.

This transparently punitive charge by Legion Group is therefore unenforceable.

In view of the above, I contend that this is an unenforceable penalty and request that my appeal be upheld and the parking charge cancelled.

Umkomaas

OK - as far as it goes!

Where is the 'No Keeper Liability - No NtK issued' appeal point? Coupon-mad told you that was going to be one of your prime points of appeal.

Fruitcake told you that 'Signage' needed to be built in too. Where's that?

shewdz

Umkomaas wrote: »

OK - as far as it goes!

Where is the 'No Keeper Liability - No NtK issued' appeal point? Coupon-mad told you that was going to be one of your prime points of appeal.

Fruitcake told you that 'Signage' needed to be built in too. Where's that?

i haven't received a NtK so does it still need to be included? day 56 will be a day or two after the POPLA deadline. can i put this point in speculatively?

+ i'm just working on a signage paragraph.

Umkomaas

shewdz wrote: »

i haven't received a NtK so does it still need to be included?

+ i'm just working on a signage paragraph.

Of course it does, it's probably your most potent appeal point if the driver has not been outed. They are attempting to invoke keeper liability, their failure to issue a NtK is an utter failure, and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. PoFA 2012 is the LAW, they can't sidestep it like some obscure paragraph in a Code of Practice.

shewdz

Umkomaas wrote: »

Of course it does, it's probably your most potent appeal point if the driver has not been outed. They are attempting to invoke keeper liability, their failure to issue a NtK is an utter failure, and therefore keeper liability cannot apply. PoFA 2012 is the LAW, they can't sidestep it like some obscure paragraph in a Code of Practice.

Thanks Umkomass. really appreciate your help. i'll have a play around with my appeal letter and post the modifications later. thanks again.