PCN: Millennium parking services

ductape

Hi all
back again after a very long gap in them bothering to correspond with me.

I have been provided with what is supposedly my POPLA code and basically told that the PCN will not be cancelled.

Would it be worth posting the email in here for you guys to advise on it more specifically?

many thanks!

Coupon-mad

No need, these are standard letters.

You need to show us your draft POPLA appeal, based on the detailed formulaic examples you will find in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

ductape

Yep, will do hoping to put it together in the next few days

Thank you

ductape

OK all, I have drafted the following so far for POPLA appeal (Please forgive me for any errors at this stage, its a rough draft and its been a long day full of work from the go ) I will be going through this with a toothcomb before sending, but looking to check if I am on the right lines.

1.No Breach of Contract


The following is a summary of events

Around 22:20 Vehicle enters car park for brief stop.

Driver makes quick check of signage which states there is only a fee for anything over 3 hours parking between 7pm-7am.

Around 22:30 Driver promptly returns to move vehicle from car parking area.

The signage shown is completely misleading and states the following:

Monday – Sunday 7am – 7pm
0-1 Hour £1.40
1-2 Hours £2.60
2-3 Hours £3.80

Monday – Sunday 7pm – 7AM
3-12 hours £2.60

It does not state a fee for 0-3 hours after 7pm (which it clearly does state for the daytime hours 7am-7pm).

As you can see, due to the fact that the signs present do not state that there is a charge in place for the time in which the vehicle was stopped, then the request for payment cannot be upheld.

I therefore contend that the contravention did not occur and there was no breach of contract.

Under the principle of contra proferentem an ambiguous contractual term must be read in a manner most favourable to the motorist . In this situation the chargeable time period between 7pm and 7am is ambiguous as this is clearly open to a different interpretation .

2. Inadequate grace period

An inadequate grace period has been given as required by the BPA Code of Practice to which Millennium Parking Services

must adhere.

The code states :

13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Millennium Parking Services state only a 5 minute time scale is allowed, which is extremely unreasonable and outside of the above stated 10 minutes,

The length of the stay was approx 10 minutes only due to reasons outside of the drivers control. A grace period OF GREATER THAN 10 MINUTES must be offered , 10 minutes to exit the car park and an unspecified period to study, accept the terms and make payment.

Millennium Parking Services are operating in breach of the Code of Practice.

3.No Authority
As Millennium Parking Services do not have proprietary interest in the land then I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such

4. Not a genuine pre estimate of loss – signage also unclear

The contract entered into between the driver and Millennium Parking Services is a simple financial consumer contract.

The payment for times between 7pm and 7am Monday – Sunday are listed as 3-12 hours at £2.60. There is no fee stipulated for less than 3 hours parking. This makes plain that the sum of £150 being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors or minor underpayment, and is consequently unenforceable.

As this is a simple financial contract any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If Millennium Parking Services believe that inadequate payment was made (which their signs fail to make clear and which I deny) their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. The vehicle was parked for ten minutes, at a time when the car park does not stipulate a fee for 10 minutes (which again should be allowed as a grace period).

£150 is quite clearly not a genuine pre estimate of their loss and is clearly extravagant and unconscionable compared to the supposed unpaid tariff. If Millennium Parking Services believe their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of this.



5. Unfair term

The charge is quite clearly an unfair contractual term under UTCCR 1999 and is consequently unenforceable.
a. The charge of £150 is clearly grossly disproportionate to any purported loss which would only be a small parking tariff if no payment had been made at all.
b. The contract causes an imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the motorist.
c. The fact that signage shows during daytime hours (7am - 7pm) a tariff is given for anything from zero hours stay makes the information given for customers completely unclear during night hours (7pm-7am) as no fee is stipulated for anything under a 3 hour 'stay'.
d. 'The unfairness of time the vehicle was monitored is clearly contrary to the concepts of fair dealing, openness, reasonableness and good faith'.

6. The Registered Keeper is not liable
I am the registered keeper and Millennium Parking Services do not have the identity of the driver.

As Millennium Parking Services has failed to satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act I cannot be liable for the charge .

The unpaid parking charge that should have been requested ( paragraph 9(1) of the Act ) is that which was unpaid on the day before the Notice to Keeper was issued. This can only be the purportedly unpaid parking tariff and not £150 which had not been requested and which there was no facility to pay on the day before the Notice to Keeper was issued. Consequently £150 cannot be considered unpaid for the purposes of the Act. It clearly demonstrates that Millennium Parking Services has failed to satisfy the requirements of the Act and cannot rely on it. At no time was the registered keeper asked to pay the purportedly unpaid tariff.


7.Other requirements
As a payment system is operational at this location, any landowner contract and supplementary site specific user manual, must also provide evidence that this company has a contract with the landowner permitting the following:
a) payments by this system
b) No DPA rights have been contravened as a consequence of using such a system
c) Full planning consent is in force for use of signage at the location.





These valid points aside; I conclude by returning to the initial argument for which there is clear supporting evidence from both parties for allowing the appeal:

Millennium Parking Services have provided unclear and unfair signage at the site in question essentially creating a money trap for themselves to obtain extortionate payments through means of threatening letters, emails and notices.
The signage only states 5 minutes grace, which is unfair especially when there have been decisions made about a 10 minute grace period from BPA. Being that no fee is stipulated for 0-3 hours and the driver stopped for an emergency, returning to move the vehicle on within a 10 minute period (which is perfectly reasonable, especially at this time of night).

Thank you so much to anyone taking the time to look through for me, really do appreciate all the help.

Do I add in about the Beavis case at all, is there relevance in my case?

Many many thanks

Coupon-mad

That's great work! I like this, very clearly written, what daft signs! Well spotted earlier by Unicorn51. No contravention then! :

As you can see, due to the fact that the signs present do not state that there is a charge in place for the time in which the vehicle was stopped, then the request for payment cannot be upheld.

I therefore contend that the contravention did not occur and there was no breach of contract.

Under the principle of contra proferentem an ambiguous contractual term must be read in a manner most favourable to the motorist . In this situation the chargeable time period between 7pm and 7am is ambiguous as this is clearly open to a different interpretation .

Nice wording there.


I think I would remove the UTCCRs point because that's now replaced by the Consumer Rights Act and TBH, you don't need it. I would replace point #5 with a simple point stating that £150 exceeds the maximum ceiling of parking charge (£100) set in the BPA Code of Practice. And it exceeds the maximum that can be pursued from a registered keeper under Schedule 4 which can only be the sum of the parking charge alone (even though in fact they cannot pursue any sum, due to the Schedule 4 omissions).

Do I add in about the Beavis case at all, is there relevance in my case?

Yes, it should be mentioned in your point #4 to say that your case is completly different from the Beavis decision. You already have good wording about the alleged contract in this case (which doesn't exist anyway) is a simple financial contract (not the unusual one described in Beavis). So you don't need to add much but should mention how it differs. Look at this version for ideas:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70068188#Comment_70068188

Aldi-Parking made a good job there (ignore the words he's copied under #5 unfair terms).

ductape

Thank you!

I was originally going to quote the following

I would refer the POPLA adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye v Barry Beavis. In that situation the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking places.

This car park is no different to any other commercial enterprise. There can be no argument of commercial justification allowing what would otherwise be a clear penalty, simply because a small was admin error was made when the vehicle would otherwise have been welcome to park as it did.

A contractual term which imposes the requirement to pay a disproportionately large sum for failing to carry out an admin task is the very essence of an unlawful penalty. Analysis of paragraphs 43-51 from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the Court of Appeal would have considered the charge in this case as an unenforceable penalty. This case can be clearly distinguished from that of ParkingEye v Beavis the judgment in which is irrelevant in this situation.

Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in that case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility . As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.

Which I partly mentioned in the linked post, just wanted to be sure it would be relevant

Thanks very much

Coupon-mad

Yes it is relevant. Good research, good luck!

ductape

Much appreciated

ductape

Hi all,

Just wanted to update. Had an email from POPLA stating that the investigation is complete.. logged in full of doubt and success!! my appeal was successful

Just wanted to say a big thank you to anyone who has input to my thread along with giving a positive outcome to inspire more to appeal

thanks

Redx

well done , please post the verdict in the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread, with the name of the assessor, the PPC name, the location and a url to this thread as well

again, well done, especially due to the strange decisions they have made recently