Parking ticket upside down PEA - Popla Appeal

ziran

Paid 5 Quid for One Hour and when I returned saw notice .
The parking ticket was upside down (face down).

I was pretty upset so without doing a research I sent an appeal
With scanned copy of valid ticket and following explanation which was rejected.:

I had purchased the pay and display @11:03 and placed the same in the window.It is frustrating when someone does this even when we are on the right side.

Along with the rejection they provided the popla code and I provided the same information there too . Meanwhile the fine went up from £60 to £100.

Popla has come back with the message :

Received Parking & Enforcement Agency’s case file. You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.

The Signage Image is provided here:
(I am not able submit with links ..hence had to remove the link


The Case File is as follows :

Case Summary/Rules and Conditions (Response to Appellants appeal) The land in question is private land, and the Operator; Parking and Enforcement Agency Ltd (“PEA”), has an agreement with the landowner to operate and enforce parking control measures. By way of contractual warning signs displayed throughout the site, motorists are advised that the land is subject to terms and conditions of parking. As per the numerous contractual warning signs displayed throughout the site (Evidence marked , motorists are advised that a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will be payable for not adhering to the T&Cs of this site. One of these Terms and Conditions state that a PCN will be issued for „failing to clearly display a valid Pay and Display (“P&D”) ticket’. When parking on private land, a motorist has a duty to avail themselves of any applicable terms and conditions of parking. The motorist then has a choice to either accept the T&Cs of parking for the site in question, prior to leaving their vehicle parked, or not to leave their vehicle on site. PEA are members of the British Parking Association (“BPA”) Approved Operator Scheme (“AOS”) and therefore all signage on site had been vetted and approved as adequate by the BPA. On XX XXX 2016, the Appellants vehicle was observed as being parked at the site whilst Failing to clearly display a valid P&D ticket Subsequently a Parking Charge Notice numbered XXXX was issued and affixed to the vehicle. An appeal was received from Mr XXX on XX XXX 2016 whereby he accepted to being the driver based on the appeal narrative. The Appellant, in their appeal stated that they arrived at the site and purchased a P&D ticket adequate for the time the vehicle was left at the site for, they state that the serial number on the reverse-visible side should have identified the ticket as being valid to the issuing agent but offer no explanation as to how the ticket ended up this side up on the dashboard. As per the enclosed photographic evidence, it is clear that the Appellant‟s vehicle had a P&D ticket on display but as it is the incorrect side displayed its validity cannot be confirmed at the time of issue. As per the Operators warning signs, motorists are made aware that a PCN will be issued to any vehicle which parks whilst failing to correctly display a valid P&D ticket It is the Operators submission that whilst the Appellant stated that the serial number on the reverse of the P&D ticket should have identified to the issuing agent its validity, this is incorrect. The Operators contractual warning signage is explicit insomuch as it clearly states that a pay and display ticket must not only be purchased at the time of entering the site but be clearly displayed at all times whilst making use of the site‟s parking facilities, the Appellant holds responsibility of the issue of the PCN to the issuing agent however the onus remains with the motorist in this regard to ensure that their purchased pay & display ticket is displayed correctly. As the P&D purchase machines available to motorists at this site do not require the input of a vehicle registration upon purchase each ticket is attributed to whichever vehicle it is placed in and as the serial number on the reverse of the ticket could be made unreadable by any number of factors including the opacity of the motorist‟s windscreen the validity of the ticket is not confirmed by this number, we would therefore ask the Appellant‟s claim in this regard to be considered immaterial. The Appellant supplied retrospective evidence of the valid P&D ticket from the date in question in their appeal to the Operator and were advised in an appeal outcome stating the appeal had been unsuccessful that the provision of this evidence retrospectively would not discharge their liability, it has not been provided at this stage and as displaying the P&D ticket in addition to purchasing it is part of the T&Cs of this site, the PCN was issued correctly in line with the breach of the same. It is clear that a breach of contract has occurred here on the part of the Appellant, and we would therefore ask that the assessor reject the Appellants appeal based on the available evidence and the facts detailed above.

So far I have researched by going through the forums and other sites. I did come across a thread which is identical to my case/scenario:
(I am not able submit with links ..hence had to remove the link

Appreciate if you would provide your thoughts on the draft copy above which I am planning to provide to POPLA . Would like to know if it suffices and whether its dated. I strongly feel that that this is an extortion and would like to take them on.

I have pasted the draft here :

As the driver of the vehicle xxxxxx, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1 The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers.
3. Signage incapable of being fully read - no contract with driver.
4. Unreasonable & Unfair Charge - a penalty that cannot be recovered.

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to any loss that could have been suffered by the Landowner. I put Parking & Enforcement Agency to strict proof of the alleged loss including a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. The Notice to Keeper letter refers to 'breach of contract' so the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.
This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious, but in this case the tariff was paid in full. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event by a driver who was fully authorised to be parked at that site.
The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no PCNs were issued. Therefore, the sum they are seeking is not representative of any genuine loss incurred by either the landowner or the operator, flowing from this alleged parking event and the operator should make the terms of proving the car is 'exempt', much clearer to the onsite staff and to drivers in order to mitigate their alleged losses and to avoid genuine customers being wrongly ticketed.

2. No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers.
Parking & Enforcement Agency have no standing as they are an agent, not the landowner. They also have no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts.
I put Parking & Enforcement Agency to strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract. Even if a basic site agreement is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking & Enforcement Agency and their client, containing nothing that could impact on a third party customer. Also the contract must be with the landowner - not a managing agent nor retailer nor any facility on site which is not the landholder - and the contract must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP. Such a contract must show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that Parking & Enforcement Agency can form contracts with drivers in their own right and have the assignment of rights to enforce the matter in court in their name. A witness statement or site agreement will not suffice as evidence as these are generally pre-signed photocopies wholly unrelated to the contract detail and signed off by a person who may never have seen the contract at all. I insist that the whole contract is required to be produced, in order to ensure whether it is with the actual landowner, whether money changes hands which must be factored into the sum charged, and to see all terms and conditions, restrictions, charges, grace period and the locus standi of this operator.
3. Signage incapable of being fully read - no contract with driver.
The sign by the payment meter nearest to the parked vehicle had some of its wording obscured by a sticker which had been placed over a section of text by the Operator.
The BPA CoP at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for signage, stating that signs should be readable and understandable at all times. In addition, if the sign's wording is misleading and where there is an unclear or ambiguous contract term, the doctrine of contra proferentem - giving the benefit of any doubt in favour of the party upon whom the contract was foisted - applies. It is up to the company to ensure their terms are clear and unambiguous, otherwise any ambiguity must be interpreted in the favour of the consumer
4. Unreasonable & Unfair Contract Terms - a penalty that cannot be recovered.
The terms that the Operator in this case are alleging gave rise to a contract were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance to my potential detriment. There is no contract between the Operator & motorist but even if POPLA believes there was likely to be a contract then it is unfair and not recoverable.
This charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:
‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify 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.’

In the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:-
''5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.''
The Office of Fair Trading, Unfair Contract Terms Guidance:
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
''18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However... a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.''
I put Parking & Enforcement Agency to strict proof regarding all of the above contentions and if they do not address any point, then it is deemed accepted.

Yours faithfully

Guys_Dad

You have used a pre-Beavis argument in your appeal as point 1. You have admitted to being the driver. You have lost the chance to defend yourself as keeper. Not a good start.

If the point you make about the sticker is valid, then a picture is essential.

If they claim to have had the signage approved by the BPA, demand to see that proof.

Read the NEWBIES thread again too.

fisherjim

As above, also you must challenge their evidence submission eg:

"as the serial number on the reverse of the ticket could be made unreadable by any number of factors including the opacity of the motorist‟s windscreen the validity of the ticket is not confirmed by this number, we would therefore ask the Appellant‟s claim in this regard to be considered immaterial".


If the above makes the ticket invalid, all tickets in all vehicles which ever way round must be considered invalid!

Coupon-mad

You cannot write a new appeal to POPLA at 'comments stage'. You are wasting your time and energy on it.

You are too late to add more arguments, so what was your POPLA appeal? Please let's not hear 'I have no idea because I typed it in online and didn't keep a copy but I said how unfair and disproportionate the charge was and I showed POPLA I had paid for a ticket'.

If so, you are about to lose at POPLA so you would do better to research what happens after that (i.e. ignoring debt collector letters as per post #4 of the NEWBIES thread and this thread):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:-

Has been superseded in 2015, just like the GPEOL argument.

The only useful thing to try to rescue your POPLA appeal (unless it had more to it than you have suggested to us) would be if the signs do not create any obligation about displaying a 'valid' P&D ticket 'clearly' on the dashboard. I suspect they do say something about display of a ticket.

You can show us links you know, like all other newbies manage to do, by breaking the link.

ziran

@Coupon-mad
Wrt :

You are too late to add more arguments, so what was your POPLA appeal? Please let's not hear 'I have no idea because I typed it in online and didn't keep a copy but I said how unfair and disproportionate the charge was and I showed POPLA I had paid for a ticket'.

I did write something along the same lines rather more rudimentary :
I had purchased the pay and display @11:03 and placed the same in the window.It is frustrating when someone does this even when we are on the right side.

It looks like since I am in comments stage and cannot appeal or formulate my comments as an appeal which would cause me to lose the popla bit. As already spent a considerable time and energy would send the points gathered from the posts and I would move onto research the next stages.

I was naive enough to think that showing the ticket as evidence retrospectively was sufficient and missed that a loophole/unjust contractual note would override it.
AND didn't Google.

Thank for the links .

ziran

@fisherjim
Thanks for the suggestion.

I would incorporate this in the comments section and see where it goes
Keeping Coupon-mad comments in mind , would be preparing for the next stage

ziran

@Guys Dad
Thanks for pointing out that its a pre-Beavis appeal. i.e pt1

Keeping Coupon-mad comments in mind , would be preparing for the next stage

ziran

@Coupon-mad, @fisherjim @Guys Dad

Just for records the signage was : https: //s31.postimg.org /4cscfjvq3/ PEA.png

fisherjim

Here you go:

https://s31.postimg.org/4cscfjvq3/PEA.png

This wasn't in Northern Ireland by any chance?

ziran

No it was in Wembley

fisherjim

Ok , I don't see how that sign can be compliant when some of the wording is obscured. Others may have more views on it.