Popla help - private road, not carpark(

pinky1984

Hi everyone I've been scanning all the threads for guidance but a lot of what I find relates to car parks, not private roads.

I parked on a private road, back in February in Spinningfields Manchester (not that I was aware it was a private road given the rubbish signage) and have appealed by UKPC with little joy - no shock.

I was to appeal to POPLA on the grounds of the signage, as I believe I can no longer use the Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss argument these days - am I right?

I have photos of the road, which only has signs on the left hand side (not the right as I was parked) making in reasonable to assume it was for a flattened bit of land (at least in my mind).

What do I need to add to this:



Dear Popla,

I write to appeal the parking charge notice issued by UKCP. On the grounds of insufficient signage.

The road in question has limited clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. Please see attached evidence below, I have gathered as proof. This contradicts the wording on the PCN which states the signage is ‘clearly and prominently displayed’. Please see the attached evidence.
Photo 1: shows the parking signs, these are situated on the left hand side of the road (not the right as I was parked) and away from the road deeming it reasonable to assume the signs related in fact to the grey area outside the building. They also do not state where the restrictions begin and end.
Photo 2: also shows the parking sign, which is impossible to read from road height as they are 8-10 feet above ground level.
Photo 3: shows the part of the road the vehicle was parked, my vehicle was located in the middle section of these two cars, where there is no lines on the road, and no signage, making it reasonable to assume that normal highway rules applied, and this was a place which carried no parking restrictions.
Photos 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: are taken from the UKPC website. Even in these pictures you can see the car is located away from the signage, and that the signage is not readable in these photos. Furthermore it clearly displays my vehicle parked on the side of the road with no signage, and in an area with no road markings.

I therefore appeal the PCN, on the grounds that it is unreasonable to assume I was able to read them, thus invalidating any form of contract between myself and UKPC.
----

I don't know if it's worth me adding the text below or not?
The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable:
The amount charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to the UKPC company or the landowner.
I understand UKPC do not own the car park/land on which I was parked and they have given me no information about their policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. I have requested a copy of the policy from UKPC which has not been supplied. I have therefore no evidence that the £60 fine represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Any help appreciated. I have all the photos to back it up, including ones UKCP took where you still can't read the signs! I have about 9 days left to get this in, and I'm beginning to worry that I just don't know how to phrase the appeal.

Thanks in advance.

Half_way

First of all, replace any wording in your mind of Road vs car park as "Site" and any mention in anyone elses thread or the sticky thread of car park with Site.

Secondly that popla challenge will not succeed, as above see Road as Site, another point is, is the road private or public? who owns the land? does the PPC have landowner authority? if you still have time have you complained to the landowner?

pinky1984

I have 9 days left. I assume it's Spinningfields who owns the land. There's no contact address on their website (and I can't link it as i'm new) but I've had previous success yelling at people on Twitter - is that a worthwhile approach? Or is there a way to find contact details for them?

The road is Left Bank in Manchester - again I can't post a link.

Is there any way to form an appeal to Popla over this, or am I better off cutting my loses and paying the PCN?

Umkomaas

pinky1984 wrote: »

I have 9 days left. I assume it's Spinningfields who owns the land. There's no contact address on their website (and I can't link it as i'm new) but I've had previous success yelling at people on Twitter - is that a worthwhile approach? Or is there a way to find contact details for them?

The road is Left Bank in Manchester - again I can't post a link.

Is there any way to form an appeal to Popla over this, or am I better off cutting my loses and paying the PCN?

Have you read the newbies sticky (especially post #3 and its links) which will give you far more comprehensive information about how to appeal to POPLA and what to include rather than firing random questions looking for a quick fire answer to your problem.

While it's not 'painting by numbers', winning at POPLA isn't rocket science. It will need a little bit of research and work, but there are examples (NOT templates) linked in the sticky post #3. Look at the most recent as things change rapidly - don't use examples which are any more than a few months old - and none from before Nivember 2015.

Have you tried putting 'Spinningfields' into the forum search engine - we've seen threads about this site a few times in the recent past.

A quick phone call tomorrow to the local authority covering the Spinningfields area will tell you whether or not it is an adopted road. The LA might also have details of the landowner if it is private land.

Otherwise Google might help.

pinky1984

I've read all the stickies - it's what I guided my initial appeal on, but I'm not finding it overly easy to work out what should be in my Popla appeal. Is the "POPLA Appeal [Premier Park Ltd] - Incorrect Decision" the best one to be guiding my appeal on? I'm not trying to be lazy, I'm just really struggling to figure out what guidance and examples to follow.

Google confirms the road is private land. I can't find anything on the forum for Spinningfields or left bank though when I search, unless I'm being really silly.

Editing a version of the one I found below, with the evidence relevant to the circumstance of my issue below. I don't know if it's anywhere near on the right track with this? Again not trying to be lazy, I just don't want to submit the wrong things.

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

As a law abiding citizen who always pays his way, I was extremely upset to hear of a £100 ‘parking charge notice’ displayed on the vehicle of which I am registered keeper for. The vehicle in question was parked on a site which was unclearly marked as private land.

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1) Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
2) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
3) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers


1. Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100. Inadequate signage
The only notices are on the left hand side of the site as you enter from Bridge Street on a raised area away from the are my vehicle was parked, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. At the time of the contravention no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Any photos supplied by UKPC to POPLA will no doubt show the signage in with the misleading aid of a close up camera and the angle may well not show how high the sign is, evidence submitted by myself displays the signs at a least 7 feet above street level, making them unreadable from the street. As such, I require UKPC to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, taken at the same time of day as the contravention without photo-shopping or cropping and showing where the signs.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. As the signs are placed only on the left hand side of the road, this would force the driver to turn away from viewing the road ahead in order to read the signs.

The site in question has no clear, signage, readable from ground level to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. Please see attached evidence below, I have gathered as proof. This contradicts the wording on the PCN which states the signage is ‘clearly and prominently displayed’. Please see the attached evidence.
Photo 1: shows the parking signs, these are situated on the left hand side of the site (not the right as the vehicle was parked) and away from the site of the vehcicle deeming it reasonable to assume the signs related in fact to the grey area outside the building. They also do not state where the restrictions begin and end.
Photo 2: also shows the parking sign, which is impossible to read from standing height as they are 8-10 feet above ground level.
Photo 3: shows the part of the site the vehicle was parked, my vehicle was located in the middle section of these two cars, where there are no lines on the road, and no signage, making it reasonable to assume that normal highway rules applied, and this was a place which carried no parking restrictions.
Photos 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8: are taken from the UKPC website. Even in these pictures you can see the car is located away from the signage, and that the signage is not readable in these photos. Furthermore it clearly displays my vehicle parked on the side of the site with no signage, and in an area with no road markings.

A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.


2. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. UKPC must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so UKPC have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

UKPC cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe UKPC are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown UKPC supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to appeal point 3 below.

3. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, UKPC must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put UKPC to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between UKPC and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to UKPC.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

{Name of Keeper}

System

Was this Left Bank?



2012 pic with signs in place

pinky1984

Yes - the ticket says Spinningfields, but it's Left Bank that I was parked on.

Fruitcake

Did you appeal to UKPC as keeper or as driver? If the former, then you should have non POFA 2912 compliant NTK in there as well. Unfortunately most people rush in and appeal as soon as they get a PCN and give away a very valuable appeal point by revealing the driver's identity.

Do you have pictures of the actual signs? Can you upload an image f the sign used in UKPCs NTK? Upload it to a web hosting site such as tinypic or photobucket then post the URL here but change http to hxxp. Someone here will change it back so it can be viewed. Redact the reg number before posting them up.

If using GPEOL you will need to show why your appal differs from the Beavis case, otherwise it is a dead point.

You should also have Not the Landowner as another point.

Fruitcake

Typo in 1, and you should add the word alleged as well.

The only notices are on the left hand side of the site as you enter from Bridge Street on a raised area away from the area my vehicle was parked, which is not a 'sign' nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions. At the time of the alleged contravention

System

Yes - the ticket says Spinningfields, but it's Left Bank that I was parked on.

Its a UKPC Hotspot. The pic is from 2012 when ANPR were covering the road. Sometime mid-2014 ANPR were replace by UKPC and UKPC reduced the number of signs including the ones on the tarmaced road to make it appear only the other (grey) side was covered. If you use Google Street View's history you will see how UKPC reduced the number of signs over the years to increase their take at that site.

Concentrate on showing what UKPC have done to make it more likely a contract could never have been formed in the first place - no signs/ no contract.

pinky1984

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2qin4lx/9

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2je5la8/9

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/34npf7k/9

hxxp://tinypic.com/r/2h6dkec/9

are some of the images I have (I have a couple more, but they're on a theme). I apealled as the keeper but after about 10 days, so I didn't wait for the NTK to come, can I still appeal on the grounds of POFA 2912 compliant NTK?

It sounds like i should remove the GPEOL bit, and focus on the signage, as I can't see how the case is different to that of the Bevis case, is that right?

Thanks for all your help so far!