Help with POPLA appeal

Coupon-mad

Depends on the agreement they have with the scammers. Are you actually talking about the SITE LANDOWNER? Or your leaseholder 'landlord'? He won't have the contract/cannot cancel a PCN but the site landowner or managing agents probably can.

But yes, it is better if a landowner tells them to cancel directly rather than weakly 'helps' by writing a letter or email saying you have a permit. That will not get it cancelled, you know, it's not about having a permit. PPCs want their pound of flesh for nowt, it's how come some of them are as rich as this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713705/The-parking-ticket-fat-cats-one-s-chum-Prezza-two-drive-Aston-Martins-Meet-men-ve-millions-motorists-misery.html

That's what it is all about. Beat them at POPLA and the letters of threatening drivel will never start.

Show us your draft once you've beefed the signage bit up. Quote the BPA CoP Appendix B in that section and go and take some pics of a tape measure or ruler next to the side of a sign to show the small wording (illegible = no contract). Also when these permits were issued, were you given a letter with it or an email or did you have to sign anything - do you have a copy?

A lot of these permit 'agreements' arguably fall at the basic contract law hurdle by not even stating the sum of the parking charge you 'may' risk paying. That sort of letter/email or signed agreement can help as evidence of no agreed contract to pay £100. As can a copy of the permit front & back if there is nothing on it about any obligation to display it/any contract to pay £100 on default.

If there is nothing on your permit nor the letter/email that accompanied it about the 'parking charge' specifically in £ - plus only small print on unremarkable, non-prominent signs not seen/not near the car/obscured by trees/hidden by the bins - is a good way to paint the picture of a resident who has never had a fair opportunity to learn about the onerous, 'unexpected charge' term by which he will later be bound.

Breaks Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule (in fact, if you search this forum for that you will find recent POPLA appeals from last week)!

And include 'no landowner authority' too, quoting BPA CoP section 7.3 just as you will see in other POPLA appeals disussed in the past week people have put up here.

Just go back two dozen pages or so on the forum, clicking only on POPLA appeal thread titles and you will see the strongest ones recently. Or search 'Denning' or 'Red Hand Rule' and you will get some really up to date ones in your search result.

wahooanna

Hi again - I have completed my appeal, please could anyone have a read over and let me know if you think it is any good!! To be honest I pretty much copied and pasted the second point from someone else's appeal as I really don't understand it all that well and I think the first point is my best bet... Thank you

ps. Coupon-mad you were right about the font size! Trying to upload my photos to a photo hosting website but having trouble



I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:


1. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.



1) Inadequate and Unclear Signage

The signs are inadequate and the font size does not meet the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. I have included photos of the signs with a ruler to measure the Group I font size, which is 15mm. The BPA Code of Practice Appendix B states that the minimum font size for Group I text on a sign in a parking area entered immediately by turning off a 30mph road is 60mm. This sign therefore breaches the BPA Code of Practice and my appeal should be allowed and my parking charge should be cancelled.
The signs were not visible from a distance and the words are unreadable, as per the photo the parking warden took of the car – you can see the terms and conditions sign in the background is clearly in very small writing and not readable from even 8 foot away. I put Parking Ticketing Ltd to strict proof otherwise; the sign with terms and conditions is not clearly visible upon entering the car park.

The sign also breaches the BPA Code of Practice Appendix B which effectively renders it unable to form a contract with a driver in the hours of darkness: ”Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness…when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved…by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit…should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads”. Photos have been provided to prove this of all 3 signs in the car park, in which there are clearly no lights for the signs to be lit during darkness.

The signs displayed in the parking area state; “Failure to comply with the parking conditions below will result in a £100.00 parking charge notice being reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days. Vehicles parked in this area must clearly display a valid P.T.L authorised permit in the windscreen”; the permit was clearly visible in the rear windscreen of the car so there was no failure to comply with the parking conditions as my car did not breach any stated on this sign. If a permit can only be displayed in the FRONT windscreen then this should clearly be stated on the signs and in the terms and conditions, and therefore supports that my car was in fact complying with terms and conditions and not in breach of the contract.
I have provided photos to show the permit clearly displayed in the rear windscreen of the car and I would argue that regardless of the direction the car was facing, the permit was just as visible as if it had been in the front windscreen.


2) No Landowner contract

Parking Ticketing Ltd has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Parking Ticketing Ltd to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Parking Ticketing Ltd have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Parking Ticketing Ltd are in fact entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Parking Ticketing Ltd to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for Parking Ticketing Ltd merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

This concludes my appeal and I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

Yours sincerely,

Guys_Dad

Suggest you remove your name.

wahooanna

i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr20/annaclarke28/2_zpsk1pddabb.jpg

i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr20/annaclarke28/thumb_IMG_3732_1024_zpsotzcxejf.jpg

i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr20/annaclarke28/thumb_IMG_3746_1024_zpstx5zp33n.jpg

You will need to add the first part of the link to view the photos (as a new user I can't!)...Can you let me know if I am right in saying that the font is too small for this particular bit of the sign (it's 15mm)?

wahooanna

Thanks - forgot to leave that part off!

Umkomaas

Why aren't you including in your appeal:

No landowner authority
No proprietary interest in the land
A dismantling of the Beavis case in the context of your parking event?

If you look at recent POPLA decisions in the sticky by the same name and the links in the newbies sticky, post #3 you'll find suitable paragraphs to copy, paste and adapt to your case.

wahooanna

To be honest I have looked for weeks and I really don't understand any of those arguments (Ii have until Monday to send my appeal)...plus I've spoken to the landowner and he pays them to do what they do so not sure it's even a valid point with the landowner authority? I didn't want to over complicate my appeal as I thought the signage point was significant! What do you think?

Redx

I would suggest that it does not matter if you understand those points

what matters is that you bring them up as an appeal point, which is designed to make the PPC prove their case against you and in doing so they have to refute your appeal points

non-inclusion means they wont be allowed later nor will they be looked at in any detail either

if you DO include them and POPLA dismiss them then that is a matter for POPLA to decide

I dont know how to fly an airbus A330, but I trust that if I brought up a safety issue that the relevant people and The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) would know the score and the law and be able to adjudicate if the point was valid or not

so if I allege that the pilot seemed ill or intoxicated I would trust that those who adjudicate those matetrs would be able to check and decide on any valid tests to determine if my appeal point had any relevance or merit

only a fool would not include those points mentioned above, I trust that isnt you

wahooanna

Hi, thanks for your reply....

Is there any way you can directly link me to (or copy and paste) those points you are talking about as I really cant find what you mean! On Coupon-mad's first post on this thread they said I can't use the 'No Genuine pre-estimate of loss' - is that not basically the same thing as the Beavis case?

If I could find the points just to copy and paste them, believe me I would be doing that but as mentioned previously...I'm getting very frustrated with reading hundreds of posts and still not knowing what to write or how to even use this forum.

Back to the landowner authority part - if the landowner has an agreed contract with PTL does that exclude this point? He lets them do what they do and pretty sure it's all signed for and legit so I don't think the second half of the appeal I wrote is any good!

Guys_Dad

Why don't you just read the last 2 pages of the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread? There must be something there you can use as a basis for your appeal.