F1rst parking charge at university

[Deleted User]

Umkomaas wrote: »

Keeper Liability



Add the red text. Embolden that key final point in this section of your appeal.

Move this appeal point to #1 in your appeal.

Signage



Amend to read 'With reference to the BPA Code of Practice, it actually states:'

If your parking incident took place at night, ask that POPLA require the operator to produce photographic evidence of the signs, including photographs taken during the hours of darkness without flash assistance.

Ask that POPLA require the operator to produce a map of where signage is placed on the car park (which you might want to check out on site if you get a copy).

It will pay you to get some photographs taken (day and night - with and without flash) to submit later to POPLA if the PPC tries to pull a fast one with standard stock photos.

GPEOL

You need to get something in on Beavis to try to distinguish between the Supreme Court Case and yours (free car park at busy retail outlet close to a commuter railway station where the concern was deterring those using the car park all day while commuting to work and to encourage a turnover of car parking spaces). Have a search on some recent threads at POPLA appeal stage and lift a suitable paragraph from there. Flash it up with the rest of your GPEOL appeal point (don't copy and paste the whole appeal again) and we'll comment.

I'd reorder your batting lineup as follows:

1. Keeper Liability
2. No Standing or Authority.......
3. Signage
4. Unfair Terms
5. GPEOL

Place a bulletpoint list like this as an introduction to the appeal - that way the assessor can see you've got a structured order and they can pick out the ones where they can make a quick (and positive for you) adjudication. Keeper Liability alone should be enough for them not to have to go further! You only have to win one appeal point to get this upheld; the PPC has to rebut and win against every appeal point to succeed against you.

Other than above - from my viewpoint - you've covered the main bases. Let's see what F1rst make of it to POPLA. When is your POPLA deadline? Don't miss that if it's close by going out on a photo shoot - that can be done after submission.

HTH

Thank you so much, your help has been really amazing.

I found a thread with a Beavis mention written from December so it's recent and hopefully now this section is ok:

5) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v ParkingEye' judgment.

The charge is for an alleged (but denied) breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified, that this non-landowning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages. However, no such GPEOL or justification can apply here.

Unlike in Beavis, it is confidently argued that this charge has been artificially inflated and ParkingEye have failed to disengage the 'penalty rule' by virtue of a want of good faith and a failure in their duty to deal fairly with consumers and a failure to follow the requirements of their industry Code of Practice. £100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff and there was no unpaid parking time in any case.

The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs, as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. I suggest there was never any advance meeting held with the client, nor was any due regard paid to establishing any 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' prior to setting the parking charges at this site. I put this operator to strict proof to the contrary and to explain how the calculation happens to be the same whether the alleged overstay is 20 minutes or 20 hours.

The Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This must amount in its entirety, only to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they have devised afterwards, since this would not be a pre-estimate. Any later 'new' calculation (even if dressed up to look like a loss statement) would fall foul of Mr Greenslade's explanation abut GPEOL in the POPLA 2014 Report and would also falls foul of the DFT Guidance about private parking charges.

An Operator cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage.

Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' (where the Claimant tried to claim a 'loss' from a consumer for 'staff and/or management time investigating') stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’

http://www.farrarsbuilding.co.uk/cms/uploads/A-Retailer-v-B-K_001.pdf

In the case of private parking charges in general - including this Operator - the administrative staff and Managers who handle challenges and POPLA appeals are not 'significantly diverted from their usual activities', nor do appeals cause any 'significant disruption to its business', nor was there any significant loss of revenue generation. So none of the 'staff time' can be properly included in a GPEOL calculation. If POPLA do accept a small amount of staff time in a GPEOL sum then this could only be 1% of the typical time taken for POPLA appeals, because only 1% of cases follow the POPLA route. No higher figure can have been in the reasonable contemplation of the Operator at the time of the parking event because the chances of POPLA are even less than 'debt collector stage' both being far too remote to be likely.

Here are images of the signs at 7am when I parked, one is from the day time showing the road sign doesn't clearly indicate anything about it being a permit area either. One of the signs you can see on a wall is regarding the space directly right in front of it saying no parking at any time. Should I include these initially in the appeal or in retaliation to their evidence?

Umkomaas

Looks the part, use it.

The photos are excellent, and will prove your point very clearly on the signage (or unclearly! ). Just confirm that the start and end of your parking incident did take place during the hours of darkness.

[Deleted User]

Umkomaas wrote: »

Looks the part, use it.

The photos are excellent, and will prove your point very clearly on the signage (or unclearly! ). Just confirm that the start and end of your parking incident did take place during the hours of darkness.

Thanks a lot, just one lat question: on the POPLA site, it asks if "Are you submitting this appeal on behalf of someone else?"

As I am the registered keeper and not the driver, I am not sure what to click because I have to give away the driver's details if I say it's on behalf of someone else

Thanks so much

Umkomaas

I take it that it's your name - as keeper - on the PCN? In which case you are not doing on anyone else's behalf. There's no need to be naming any driver.

Coupon-mad

because I have to give away the driver's details

I'm not available to help this week but - NONONO!! That's the whole point. You are appealing as keeper, as is your right.

Once it's finalised you submit your appeal as a pdf attachment under 'OTHER'. You do NOT need to fill in any other reasons except your details as appellant. Do not accidentally add things in the summary boxes like 'I didn't see the signs'. This is all about staying in keeper mode: 'the driver did this, the driver did that'.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'm not available to help this week but - NONONO!! That's the whole point. You are appealing as keeper, as is your right.

Once it's finalised you submit your appeal as a pdf attachment under 'OTHER'. You do NOT need to fill in any other reasons except your details as appellant. Do not accidentally add things in the summary boxes like 'I didn't see the signs'. This is all about staying in keeper mode: 'the driver did this, the driver did that'.

Thanks so much coupon-mad, you've been really helpful

I received a notice to keeper 2 days after i sent the appeal, and POPLA have told me that they have received the case file and I should respond to it in 7 days from that email and if I haven't received it to contact f1rst, and I haven't received it so I emailed with the email address for their marketing (they have no number or no email for enquiries!) saying:

Dear F1rst,

Regarding POPLA case XXX, you have not sent me the case file needed for the case.

If you do not get the case file to me in significant time for me to read it and respond (6 days from this email being sent as POPLA emailed me about receiving it) then I will have to note that you have failed to send me a case file which is why I cannot respond.


They haven't responded, if I don't receive it does that work in their favour as I can't respond?

Thanks

[Deleted User]

Umkomaas wrote: »

I take it that it's your name - as keeper - on the PCN? In which case you are not doing on anyone else's behalf. There's no need to be naming any driver.

Thanks so much! You have been so very helpful.

Coupon-mad

You need to email the BPA to complain about the lack of evidence pack and also email POPLA to ask for an extension of time, due to no evidence pack received at your end. It's probably in the post but that's not your fault and you can ask for extension after extension (POPLA will do it).

BPA email is: aos@britishparking.co.uk

HTH

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to email the BPA to complain about the lack of evidence pack and also email POPLA to ask for an extension of time, due to no evidence pack received at your end. It's probably in the post but that's not your fault and you can ask for extension after extension (POPLA will do it).

BPA email is: aos@britishparking.co.uk

HTH

Hi, today the evidence pack arrived

containing:

1) image and plans (there's no plan, just one image, the same image that they took at the time this was issued, during DAY LIGHT, doesn't mean it was that bright when I had parked there, which it was not! I was parked there during the early morning at 7am. Their picture was taken at 10am.)

2) Parking charge notice and any notes

3) Original representations and notice o f rejection

4) "Other" evidence

F1rst have referred to "the driver" saying "the driver appealed the PCN 2 days after contravention date therefore First Parking LLP had not requested Keeper Details for this PCN" - THE DRIVER DID NOT. My appeal stated nothing about the driver, but they did not provide a copy of my appeal only the rejection letter:

"I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver also has a student permit which visible in your evidence. If you believe another offence was caused you must ensure that your signage is well lit from the period that it is free to park so that the driver can comply - this was not the case. In any event the charges are penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss as well as being an amount larger than permitted under the BPA code of practice to which you subscribe."

So why have they said that I was the driver? They also said this in the rejection letter when nothing in my appeal implied I was driver.

It also claims my appeal was based on ANRP, I'm sure I don't mention that anywhere in my appeal?

Please see images attached of the evidence provided. I would be so grateful if you helped me with a response. I am quite infuriated at this point with them.

[Deleted User]

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'm not available to help this week but - NONONO!! That's the whole point. You are appealing as keeper, as is your right.

Once it's finalised you submit your appeal as a pdf attachment under 'OTHER'. You do NOT need to fill in any other reasons except your details as appellant. Do not accidentally add things in the summary boxes like 'I didn't see the signs'. This is all about staying in keeper mode: 'the driver did this, the driver did that'.

If either of you could take a look at the evidence they provided I would be grateful