Company car - advice is to appeal early, but how early?

frankietwospots

Would anyone be willing to share the template letter they have used for appealing a PCN issued on a company car? I'm struggling to work out what to put in the letter and what to leave out. I've read the newbies thread and am confused! Do I reveal my name or not? Do I allude to the specifics of the situation (I had a valid ticket but it blew off the dashboard) or not?

This is what I have drafted so far. I received the PCN from Kernow Parking Solutions on 6th November.

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

You must either offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Insert my name and address

Half_way

A Popla code is only worth asking if the PPC is in the BPA AOS.
Question time:
who is/was the PPC?
Whats the name of the lease/hire company the vehicle is leased through/by?
What are the terms and conditions for the lease vehicle exact wording regarding fines/penalties charges?

Castle

OP says it's "Kernow Parking Solutions" which is just a trading name, not a legal entity; (BPA member for what it's worth)

Umkomaas

There's already a thread running on this.

@OP, you're not likely to endear yourself to regulars if you post duplicate threads just because you've not had a response on your other one.

In the case of a company car it really doesn't matter what you write in your appeal, provided it doesn't identify the driver and it deflects the PPC away from your company (or the car leasing company) so they don't pay the charge then invoice you with an admin fee, enabling you to draw the PPC towards you to take control of things.

It won't get you a cancellation - you're fishing for a POPLA code.

Now, two things:

1. No more posts on this thread
2. PM Crabman (Board Guide) and ask him to merge this and your original thread, otherwise regulars will have no background or context in reading and responding on this one, and you run the risk of getting advice that may not be totally appropriate to your case.

catfunt

It probably doesnt matter too much what you put in your appeal (as long as you don't say who was driving!), you're just looking to hook that POPLA code.

Half_way

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, at the time the vehicle was being driven by a rabid were-squirrel with a mad obsession about KP nuts. As you probably know were-squirrels prefer dry roasted, but will settle for salted, or just plain if desperate. After hearing the car park had something to do with KP from an associate the Were-squirrel made a beeline for this place, however the Were-squirrel was incredibly disappointed that not only were there no KP nuts, there were no nuts at all, in light of this disappointment, and the fact that your charge just adds insult to injury the Were-squirrel would appreciate it if you could cancel this charge, or provide a POPLA code
Lots of love the registered keeper at the dray.
P.S I much prefer salted cashews, and those nice scampi and lemon nik-naks

catfunt

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Straight out of the Prankster manual, that one, I reckon!

Half_way

PP inspired, the OP could and should send anything to get the POPLA code

Crabman

Duplicate threads have been merged

frankietwospots

So I got my POPLA code today and have read all of the advice on drafting my appeal letter. Would someone mind having a read of my draft below please? Thanks in advance.

Dear POPLA,
KPS PCN serial number: xxxx
POPLA verification code: xxxxxxxxxx
As the vehicle in question is a lease car and was under my signature on the date this Parking Charge Notice was issued I take responsibility as registered keeper. I wish to appeal this parking charge notice from Kernow Parking Solutions. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:

• On the <DATE> the vehicle was parked in the car park in question, a ticket was purchased that was valid for the full time that the car was parked (see photo of valid ticket).
• Due to excessively windy conditions and a lack of adhesive on the ticket, the ticket was blown off the dashboard when the parking official attended the site. The charge of £100 is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
• The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.
• Losses to the owner and parking company can only be the actual costs related to issuing the charge and administrative expenses incurred. There was no loss due to a parking space not being paid for as there was a valid ticket. General running costs should not be included (e.g. parking attendants, signage, parking meters, cameras).

The specific points of this appeal are as follows:

1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

2. No genuine pre-estimate of loss

3. Unlawful penalty clause


1) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
KPS do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow KPS to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require KPS to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and without it, KPS have no legal standing nor authority at this site which could impact on visiting drivers.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No.3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam,Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of£90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred with the view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. I submit that this applies in my case as well because the parking contract- if one is even produced - is a similar business agreement between an agent and landowner and nothing more.

If KPS produce a 'witness statement' I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor legal standing.


2) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In its parking charge notice, KPS has failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the £100 loss the landowner might have incurred. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs KPS has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park, is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.

The Notice from KPS alleges that a breach of the terms and conditions of parking have occurred and so the charge levied must therefore be damages that KPS are seeking in redress. The charge brought forward by KPS has nothing to do with an ‘failure to pay and display’ or ‘vehicle not displaying a valid parking ticket’ as the vehicle was parked on this site for one hour and full payment for this time was made (see copy of valid ticket enclosed).

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event, so this charge breaches the code and is unenforceable.

Given there has been no genuine pre-estimate of loss the charge levied is unenforceable and the charge should be cancelled.

3) Unlawful penalty clause - revenue for KPS
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, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye vSmith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by KPS is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law.


This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER