We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
parkdirectuk popla advice
fullcomplete
Posts: 1 Newbie
First of all id like to thank al of you guys for creating such a valuable resource.
I recently moved into a new property with parking bays outside. I called up the council and was told that in my area I was not eligible for a resident permit badge as my area had no controlled parking. I mistakenly took this to mean i could park in the bays and subsequently received a parking fine from "parkdirectuk". My girlfriend also received a fine and when I received my renewed blue badge and believed this to allow me to park there i received a third. I now have three parking tickets from this company that i am trying to appeal.
I've followed the newbies thread as closely as i can and waited for 3 weeks to reply then sent a copied appeal from that thread the first of which has now been rejected. I'm now in the process of putting together a popla appeal and any advice would be greatly appreciated.
The appeal so far has been put together from other popla appeals that have been posted here recently and had success. (i've read that this is the best method to take).
"Dear POPLA assessor,
As the registered keeper of xxxxxxx I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
My POPLA code is xxxxxxxxxx
1. The lack of Park Direct proprietary interest in the land at the possible site and no contractual authority from the landowner.
The Operator has no standing or authority to form contracts with motorists. Park Direct has not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper in connection with parking at this site. All park Direct have stated is that they will provide the registered keeper with a redacted copy if appealing to POPLA and that they hold a ‘confidentiality’ agreement with the landowner, so they cannot provide copy of the landowner agreement.
Park Direct does not appear to have any ownership interest in the car park, so I contend they have no legal standing to enter into a contract with a driver in their own right, nor any legal standing to pursue charges for breach in their own name. As an agent only, Park Direct has no automatic standing or authority which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
If Park Direct wishes to rely on a contract with the Landowner to claim authority to demand money from me, they should have no problem giving an opportunity for that contract to be examined.
I therefore require Park Direct to provide an un-redacted, contemporaneous, signed and dated copy of the contract between Park Direct and the Landowner, which, to demonstrate standing and authority, must specifically state that park Direct has the right to make contracts with drivers in their own name, that they have full authority to pursue charges through to court in their own name, and that the Landowner allows Park Direct to charge £100 for a parking contravention. A witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place, which could be signed by someone who may never have seen the actual contract, will not be sufficient because it will not show the terms and conditions relating to the Operator’s authority, nor any restrictions that are in place.
If Park Direct wish to rely on any such contract, I require them to show, on a point-by-point basis, that the contract is in complete compliance with all the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
2. POFA No keeper liability
As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions.
Firstly, it fails to state the period of parking: paragraph 8(2)(a)
Secondly, The Notice to Keeper does not identify the Creditor. The fact that an Operator's name is on a Notice to Keeper as the payee, does not identify them as the Creditor, as administrative functions such as sending notices and collecting monies can be carried out by other parties. The Creditor has to be identified with words to the effect 'The Creditor is...'.
The notice to keeper also shows two small scaled photograph that ParkDirect have supplied of the front of the alleged vehicle, but they do not show the number plate of the vehicle on these pictures in the Notice to keeper, with one other vehicle on the side of the photo, but with zero clear indication whatsoever of its actual location. How can they demand any charges, without resounding proof that my vehicle was parked on land that they are contractually responsible for? In the appeal rejection letter, park direct supplied two further pictures, with one showing the rear of the alleged vehicle – but again they do not clearly show the number plate of the vehicle. One of their staff could have taken this photograph of the rear of the alleged vehicle anywhere.
In this case the Driver has not been identified, so the failure of ParkDirect to meet the conditions to invoke Keeper Liability means there is no legal basis for the charge to be enforced against me as Keeper.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.
3. The Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/B]
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have potentially been suffered by the Landowner. I put Park Direct to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated and how it was caused by this alleged sub-3 minute parking event. Park Direct also states but not limited to staff costs, premises, telephone, letters and postage, IT systems and support, depreciation of assets, human resources and overheads within their explanation for calculating genuine pre-estimate of loss. This are all costs which would occurred whether the claimed contravention took place or not and cannot be calculated in any genuine pre-estimate of loss. The parking 'charge' should be cancelled on this point alone
4. Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty
The sign & the NTK are unclear, ambiguous & contradictory. On the NTK the sum is extremely hard to find, hidden in small print on the back. It is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms' and this is repeated in the rejection. Yet the sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a time-limited stay, a payment mechanism and a VAT invoice. There is none. This is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise the interpretation that favours the consumer applies."
Some extra points i'm wondering whether are worth taking into consideration are 1) the fact that i am a resident on this estate and the bays are meant for residents to park in. 2) Im a blue badge holder and on one of the instances i actually had my blue badge on display. And 3) in their rejection letter it states drivers must have a parking permit or else be a member of the gym and have signed in at reception. There is a gym right next to my estate and i am actually a member although i didnt sign in at reception at these times (or any time for that matter because there is no reception and no requirement to sign in). 4) the photos they sent me on their rejection letter show my car from a very close up shot. nothing else is really recognisable, you can barely see that i am even parked in a bay at all and my vehicle registration is not visible.
Any help and advice guys would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
I recently moved into a new property with parking bays outside. I called up the council and was told that in my area I was not eligible for a resident permit badge as my area had no controlled parking. I mistakenly took this to mean i could park in the bays and subsequently received a parking fine from "parkdirectuk". My girlfriend also received a fine and when I received my renewed blue badge and believed this to allow me to park there i received a third. I now have three parking tickets from this company that i am trying to appeal.
I've followed the newbies thread as closely as i can and waited for 3 weeks to reply then sent a copied appeal from that thread the first of which has now been rejected. I'm now in the process of putting together a popla appeal and any advice would be greatly appreciated.
The appeal so far has been put together from other popla appeals that have been posted here recently and had success. (i've read that this is the best method to take).
"Dear POPLA assessor,
As the registered keeper of xxxxxxx I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
My POPLA code is xxxxxxxxxx
1. The lack of Park Direct proprietary interest in the land at the possible site and no contractual authority from the landowner.
The Operator has no standing or authority to form contracts with motorists. Park Direct has not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper in connection with parking at this site. All park Direct have stated is that they will provide the registered keeper with a redacted copy if appealing to POPLA and that they hold a ‘confidentiality’ agreement with the landowner, so they cannot provide copy of the landowner agreement.
Park Direct does not appear to have any ownership interest in the car park, so I contend they have no legal standing to enter into a contract with a driver in their own right, nor any legal standing to pursue charges for breach in their own name. As an agent only, Park Direct has no automatic standing or authority which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.
If Park Direct wishes to rely on a contract with the Landowner to claim authority to demand money from me, they should have no problem giving an opportunity for that contract to be examined.
I therefore require Park Direct to provide an un-redacted, contemporaneous, signed and dated copy of the contract between Park Direct and the Landowner, which, to demonstrate standing and authority, must specifically state that park Direct has the right to make contracts with drivers in their own name, that they have full authority to pursue charges through to court in their own name, and that the Landowner allows Park Direct to charge £100 for a parking contravention. A witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place, which could be signed by someone who may never have seen the actual contract, will not be sufficient because it will not show the terms and conditions relating to the Operator’s authority, nor any restrictions that are in place.
If Park Direct wish to rely on any such contract, I require them to show, on a point-by-point basis, that the contract is in complete compliance with all the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
2. POFA No keeper liability
As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. One of these requirements is the issue of a ‘notice to keeper’ compliant with certain provisions.
Firstly, it fails to state the period of parking: paragraph 8(2)(a)
Secondly, The Notice to Keeper does not identify the Creditor. The fact that an Operator's name is on a Notice to Keeper as the payee, does not identify them as the Creditor, as administrative functions such as sending notices and collecting monies can be carried out by other parties. The Creditor has to be identified with words to the effect 'The Creditor is...'.
The notice to keeper also shows two small scaled photograph that ParkDirect have supplied of the front of the alleged vehicle, but they do not show the number plate of the vehicle on these pictures in the Notice to keeper, with one other vehicle on the side of the photo, but with zero clear indication whatsoever of its actual location. How can they demand any charges, without resounding proof that my vehicle was parked on land that they are contractually responsible for? In the appeal rejection letter, park direct supplied two further pictures, with one showing the rear of the alleged vehicle – but again they do not clearly show the number plate of the vehicle. One of their staff could have taken this photograph of the rear of the alleged vehicle anywhere.
In this case the Driver has not been identified, so the failure of ParkDirect to meet the conditions to invoke Keeper Liability means there is no legal basis for the charge to be enforced against me as Keeper.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.
3. The Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/B]
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have potentially been suffered by the Landowner. I put Park Direct to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated and how it was caused by this alleged sub-3 minute parking event. Park Direct also states but not limited to staff costs, premises, telephone, letters and postage, IT systems and support, depreciation of assets, human resources and overheads within their explanation for calculating genuine pre-estimate of loss. This are all costs which would occurred whether the claimed contravention took place or not and cannot be calculated in any genuine pre-estimate of loss. The parking 'charge' should be cancelled on this point alone
4. Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty
The sign & the NTK are unclear, ambiguous & contradictory. On the NTK the sum is extremely hard to find, hidden in small print on the back. It is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms' and this is repeated in the rejection. Yet the sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a time-limited stay, a payment mechanism and a VAT invoice. There is none. This is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise the interpretation that favours the consumer applies."
Some extra points i'm wondering whether are worth taking into consideration are 1) the fact that i am a resident on this estate and the bays are meant for residents to park in. 2) Im a blue badge holder and on one of the instances i actually had my blue badge on display. And 3) in their rejection letter it states drivers must have a parking permit or else be a member of the gym and have signed in at reception. There is a gym right next to my estate and i am actually a member although i didnt sign in at reception at these times (or any time for that matter because there is no reception and no requirement to sign in). 4) the photos they sent me on their rejection letter show my car from a very close up shot. nothing else is really recognisable, you can barely see that i am even parked in a bay at all and my vehicle registration is not visible.
Any help and advice guys would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
0
Comments
-
Private land. A blue badge gives no special rights to park on private land.
Your point 3 is dead in the water post Beavis in circumstances such as yours.
Matthew Shaw, POPLA assessor - was he not old POPLA and, therefore, what he says may not be worth a light.
You claim the signs are deficient. You need to show how and why. Photos will help. Just saying it is no good.0 -
Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita0 -
Private land. A blue badge gives no special rights to park on private land.
Your point 3 is dead in the water post Beavis in circumstances such as yours.
Matthew Shaw, POPLA assessor - was he not old POPLA and, therefore, what he says may not be worth a light.
You claim the signs are deficient. You need to show how and why. Photos will help. Just saying it is no good.
He may be "old POPLA", but the law regarding POFA and the requirement for a compliant NtK has not changed with the provider of POPLA....
You could still argue that the charge is punitive, but you will need to explain how your case differs from that of Beavis.
Have a look around the forum for recent (2016) examples.
It's not the silver bullet that the PPCs like to say it is when they say in so many words "Beavis!! So we win!"
I would make it the last point though.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards