Park Direct evidence from a mobile device but no PCN served

elponce28

I meant the POPLA appeal.

I am using the template from the newbies for the PCC appeal. All I want from them is the POPLA's number.

elponce28

By the way, I looked up BPA and it states that the PPC only have to specify the relevant land.
-The car park has no address, is a continuation of the building mentioned in the PCN but I thought that by having to drive around the corner in order to park could have given me chance to dispute it but it does belong to the relevant land.
-I also looked at the fact that a "parking" company could issue a ticket for "no stopping or waiting" but BPA codes says that they can word it the way they want. The signage is at the back so to read it, the driver has to commit the alleged offence as the car has to stop.
-I could argue that there is only one sign at the back, it's difficult to read from the distance but BPA says that if it's a small car park, no signage is required to be placed at the entrance.
-they seem to have complied with POFA too. I can't find anything to prove otherwise...

Losing hopes here..

The_Slithy_Tove

elponce28 wrote: »

Losing hopes here..

!!!!!!, you are seriously overthinking this. They almost certainly haven't complied with all the requirements of POFA. Very few PPCs get even close, and bottom-feeders like Park Direct are not capable of doing it right. Stop taking what they and the BPA say as Gospel truth. They all lie and cheat (and I do include the BPA here). Just follow the tried and trusted path set out in the NEWBIES thread, and you'll be fine.

elponce28

I have been reading POFA's and Came to the conclusion that it doesn't state the period of parking as per below:

-(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

So no keeper's liability there as they havent complied.

Also, on that same note, I am going to say that the sign is biased as it's only one at the back and the picture shows that the car reversed into the car park. Nothing at the entrance...

An interesting point is that POFA only mentions "parking" and my alleged contravention was "no stopping or waiting", which is again ambiguous.

Are these valid points? If so, I can start preparing my POPLA appeal. I need to start thinking earlier because I struggle sometimes with this much reading/writing. I have seen some good examples to use as a draft and will post it here when the time comes.

I was served the notice on the 15th so I am thinking of sending the standard appeal to the PCC around the 10th Jan. Apparently they can re-serve if I send it too early.

Thank you so much so far for the time you all spend helping us here. I am sorry if it takes some time for me to understand some things but I am not lazy and I am willing to fight this guys all the way!

Umkomaas

Thank you so much so far for the time you all spend helping us here. I am sorry if it takes some time for me to understand some things but I am not lazy and I am willing to fight this guys all the way!

It does take a few reads to understand it, then the fog lifts. Well done, especially as you've only been trying to understand it for less than 3 days. The PPCs have been trying to understand it for more than 3 years - and the majority still don't have a clue!

That's why any motorist who states on here that their NtK is fully compliant with PoFA is challenged to 'look again' and why it is such a potent POPLA appeal point and underscores why we tell everyone not to reveal the identity of the driver.

I think you're starting to 'get' this stuff now. They won't beat you at POPLA.

elponce28

Hello again, a very generous member of the forum helped me with this draft and I have added some bits. Anything I should add? I don't understand these things myself so I am wondering if #5 is relevant? Thank you

I am appealing your parking charge xxxxxx as the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx

1) The charge is extravagant and not a Genuine Preestimate of Loss.
2) The Notice to keeper failed to meet the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable.
3) You do not have locus standi to issue charges.
4) The signage is insufficient to hold the driver liable.
5) Disproportionate and unfair, breaching Schedule 2 of the UTCCRs and the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
6) Impossible to read the terms from a moving vehicle.

1) The charge is extravagant, not commercially justifiable and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore a penalty which is not permitted. There are sufficient differences between this incident and the case of Beavis v PE that that case can not be taken as a precedent.

2) The Notice to Keeper received does not meet the requirements of POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9. In particular, but not limited to, section 2(a) the period of parking. By not meeting the requirements stipulated in the act the keeper can not be held liable for the charge. The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.

3) Park Direct does not have locus standi to issue charges on this site. If this matter progresses I will require Park Direct to produce an unredacted copy of the contract they hold with the landowner to show what authority, if any, that they have. A witness statement testifying to the existence of a contract will be insufficient.

4) The signage is not visible, clear and unambiguous. There is no notice at the entrance to the car park and the notice that does exist is at the back of the parking space and too high to be seen by a driver in a vehicle, especially so if the driver reverses into the space as shown in the photograph you so kindly supplied. The driver did not notice any sign when exiting the car and the car park.

5) Disproportionate and unfair, breaching Schedule 2 of the UTCCRs and the Unfair Contract Terms Act:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/20...19992083_en.pdf

‘’SCHEDULE 2 Regulation 5(5) INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE
REGARDED AS UNFAIR - 1. Terms which have the object or effect of –

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;
(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract...’’

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977:
‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to identify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

6) The terms on the signage can only be read if the driver stops the vehicle but it would be already too late as your ambiguous signage and parking charge notice state "no stopping or waiting", when you claim to operate a "car park" and your firm is called "Parking" Direct Ltd. Furthermore, the message "no stopping or waiting" breaches the BPA code of practice which mandates a grace period to allow the driver to decide to accept or otherwise a contract.

This was undoubtedly a ‘concealed pitfall or trap’, which resulted in a disproportionate and unfair charge which placed an unfair burden upon the driver.

I therefore insist that the charge is cancelled immediately.

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


Thank you and I am hoping they will cancel it at PPC level.

Umkomaas

Whoaaa. You're too far ahead of yourself and firing your best bullets far too early. What you've got there is the bulk of a POPLA appeal. Don't tip off the PPC as to how much you know - lead them by the nose to POPLA.

I'm not sure you're really understanding that to get an appeal cancelled by the PPC is as about as likely as winning next weekend's lottery - without buying a ticket!! The purpose of the initial appeal is to elicit that POPLA verification code because that is where you can get this officially killed.

The only income PPCs receive is from penalties. Why would they cancel an income opportunity when they can so easily, with a few letters, hassle and pressurise people into paying them £100 - and many, many do just that?

For the moment keep them guessing how much you know by sending the initial appeal in the newbies sticky - unadulterated. Do not try to add (or subtract) a bit in any hope that you can win this at the first stage.

elponce28

Ok I received the PPC reply to my appeal. I used the template from the newbies and of course they did not uphold my appeal. I am going to scan their reply for you to see how ridiculous they can be such as stating there are numerous signs when in fact there is only one. Also, they also mention no stopping/waiting/parking this time. Further to my surprise, they state that they allow a grace period in order to allow the driver to read the sign and decide whether or not to accept.. Contradictory much as drivers are not allow to stop?

Now that I have POPLA's number, can I use the template above?

Thank you

By the way I cannot upload images

elponce28

https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=001.jpg

Redx

elponce28 wrote: »

By the way I cannot upload images

nobody can upload images here

so you host them on tinypic or photobucket, then add the url as a link to the picture

if it wont let you add live links, add a dead link instead and we will sort it out into a live link

ps:- a refusal was always expected, most of us would faint if a PPC had actually upheld and appeal, there is no money in it for them if they uphold appeals

also, please use advanced edit on post #1 and change the thread title from Parkingdirect, to Park Direct, for clarity