Hospital Red Route Parking Ticket (POPLA letter check)

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.

just had a good look through PoFA. just to confirm a NtK is not the same as the original ticket, or the appeal rejection from Legion Group? it has to be a separate letter?

shewdz

How about this rewrite? 15th dec is the POPLA deadline.

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. No “notice to keeper received” therefore not compliant with POFA 2012
4. Signage unreadable whilst driving, therefore driver not liable.
5. 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) As of Tuesday 15th December 2015, 56 days since the charge notice was issued, no formal “notice to keeper” has been received as stipulated in POFA 2012.

Therefore, UKPC has not met the keeper liability requirements and, as a result, keeper liability does not apply. As the keeper of the vehicle I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As UKPC have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

4. The alleged breach took place in low light and any signs were not adequately lighted to be seen clearly while driving (and indeed were not seen by the driver).
The BPA Code of Practice states: 18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. (Please note that due to Legion Group’s poorly positioned and unlit use of signage they were hard to see in low light.) 18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” There was no contract between the driver and Legion Group as the driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. Furthermore The signs referred to in the appeal rejection letter are not readable whilst driving. It is not possible to carefully read all wording without stopping, as doing so would jeopardize the safety of other road users. Therefore the driver cannot be held liable as he could not have been made aware of the charges without stopping, but is penalized for stopping. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

5. 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.

Fruitcake

shewdz wrote: »

just had a good look through PoFA. just to confirm a NtK is not the same as the original ticket, or the appeal rejection from Legion Group? it has to be a separate letter?

Ticket on car = NTD (notice to driver)
Ticked sent to the name and address held by DVLA records = NTK (notice to keeper.)
Rejection letter is neither of the above.


Keeper and registered keeper are not the same. The keeper is legally the person in charge of the car even if they weren't driving. That's why you always use the term keeper, not registered keeper.

Fruitcake

Remove the permit number from the PoPLA appeal.

shewdz

Fruitcake wrote: »

Ticket on car = NTD (notice to driver)
Ticked sent to the name and address held by DVLA records = NTK (notice to keeper.)
Rejection letter is neither of the above.


Keeper and registered keeper are not the same. The keeper is legally the person in charge of the car even if they weren't driving. That's why you always use the term keeper, not registered keeper.

sorry for the silly questions. i used the standard appeal letter from the newbie thread which said to include the address and name of the keeper, which i did. obviously the appeal rejection included these when it came back, but this still isnt a NtK?

+ i'll remove the permit number. im guessing thats one more way to identify a possible driver?

ampersand

Hello op - you're reading thoroughly and doing well on this.
I'm surprised no-one's picked up that identifiable permit no. from #27 and #33. Please remove it asap unless you were making it up - 'permit no.x' is sufficieint.
#
Repeat your heading above each expanded point. Use line breaks, make for ease of reading. 'Make the assessor your friend' still holds true. Accurate grammar, spelling, layout all contribute to a winning appeal, e.g.
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.
....etc.

Lose 1st person as often as you can. This leaves stronger challenges for scumpany to rebut, so ' No proprietary interest in the land and therefore no standing' or 'no locus standi'.

Await others' input. Good start.
#
Another cross-post, Fruitcake. Apologies:-)

shewdz

Thanks Amperstand. ive got rid of the perit number, and all the "I"'s and replaced them with keeper.

ive read through just about every POPLA appeal i can find, and im struggling to find anything else to put into this.

any further suggestions?

Thanks in advance