Check POPLA appeal please

feistygal

Hi all, could someone who is in the know please check my below POPLA appeal and see if it sounds good enough to go? I am going to attach it as a PDF.

I received the PCN through the post a few days after dropping someone at Stansted, stopped for about 20 seconds and got caught, but there was absolutely no signs stating anything about not being able to stop or that there were camera cars in operation...i have since been back to the spot and taken photos which i am going to send with my PDF...thanks in advance!

4th November 2015


Dear Sirs

Please find below details of my appeal.

I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) There is no landowner contract
4) No contract with the driver
5) The signage is unclear and not adequate
6) Does not comply with Schedule 4, 8 2 a) of the POFA 2012 which states that the notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates

1) The amount demanded is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The charge given is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as no losses have occurred; therefore this is unfair as stated in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly stopping. Empark have failed to provide evidence to show that this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss so are therefore in breach of the BPA Code of Practice. Due to this the charge is unenforceable.


2) No landowner contract.

As Empark are not the land owners they can’t form a contract with the driver of the vehicle. I would like Empark to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to make such contracts. A witness statement as to the existence of a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the land owner giving Empark the legal standing to impose these charges and pursue them in courts in their name as creditor. As a result of this Empark have breached the BPA code of Practice Section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, making this charge unenforceable.


4) No Contract with the driver.

If a contract is to be formed, by entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions. Whilst entering Terminal Road South there are no visable signs to be read and therefore no contract has been entered into. Also as Empark are only an agent working for the owner, signs do not help them to form a contract.


5) The signage is unclear and not adequate

Empark state that Stansted Airport have a duty to make drivers aware of the parking restrictions that are in operation on their roads and state that there are street signs that display this information including “CCTV and number plate recognition in operation and warning enforcement charge of £75”. On entering Terminal Road South in Stansted Airport, there are no signs displayed to show this information, please see my attached photographs to show evidence of this. This does not comply with the BPA Code of Practise Section B, 18.3 which states “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 their vehicle” and therefore the charge is unenforceable.
Empark also state that they use an ANPR camera vehicle to carry out enforcement and there are no signs that display this information to drivers, which my attached photographs shows evidence of. This does not comply with the BPA Code of Conduction, Section C, 30.1 which states “Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera technology may be used for parking control and enforcement. Operators using ANPR must do so in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Signs at the entrance must tell drivers that you are using this technology. Your signs must make is clear what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for” and therefore the charge is unenforceable.

6) The Notice does not comply with Schedule 4, 8 2 a) of the POFA 2012 which states that the notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates

The notice issued by Empark only refers to the time of the incident which states 16.50.00 and there is no evidence of a period of time of parking and therefore does not comply with Schedule 4, 8, 2 a) of the POFA 2012 which states that the notice must specify the period of parking to which the notice relates, making the charge unenforceable.

I request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Redx

as of today point 1) is invalidated , see parking pranksters blog and the Beavis threads

feistygal

Also i just wanted to add, that although there were no signs that stated about the fine or camera cars, there were 2 no stopping/waiting road signs that you can see in my pic but should that matter if the other signs werent there?

Redx

its not a "fine" , its an invoice , a parking charge notice , a PCN

add an extra section that the BPA CoP describes a 10 minute period to comply or withdraw , this was not observed by the PPC and it was not a parking event

add another section that airports are "not relevant land" under POFA 2012 so the keeper liability does not apply

feistygal

Ok thank you Redx...how does this sound for "not relevant land"?

1) The land is not ‘relevant land
All the land and surrounding approach roads of Stansted Airport are Airport owned and covered by Byelaws, as such, the Airport is not ‘relevant land’ under POFA and there is no registered keeper liability. As the keeper of the vehicle i decline, as is my right to name the driver. As the operator has neither named the driver nor provided evidence of who the driver was and has not provided any evidence that they are entitled to recover the charge from the keeper, the charge should be dismissed.

I cant find anything about the 10 minute period in the BPA COP?

Redx

read section 13

Umkomaas

I cant find anything about the 10 minute period in the BPA COP?

It's not yet hit the CoP, but this is from the BPA's own 'Latest News'. It won't feature in the CoP until its next revision.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/ukpc-disciplined-by-bpa-after-photo-tampering-allegations

EDIT - just read Redx's input. New CoP has been issued in the past couple of weeks.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

Redx

its in the latest one I downloaded 2 weeks ago

October 2015 , version 6

feistygal

Brilliant thank you

feistygal

I'm not sure if i am just being a bit dim but i've received an email from POPLA today saying that the operator has submitted their evidence and i can view it on the portal, which i assume is the website, but when i go on there i can't see an option for me to view the evidence, i can just see where it says it has been submitted?

nigelbb

You cannot read the evidence on the POPLA website. At most there will be a summary of the evidence. The PPC is required to send you the evidence pack.