It seems these things come in groups...

Carthesis

After sending off a letter to G24 this afternoon regarding an alleged overstay, I got home tonight to find another letter from Highview requesting payment for.... well, I don't know what actually. I was in one of the local car parks which is free for 90 mins. They allege I was there for 23 mins and that this is in breach of the T&Cs - and that's literally all the "Charge Notice" says.

Anyway, no difficulty, the letter is written and ready to send, although I now note the "Charge Notice" is just that and isn't labelled NtK or the like.

However, Something I noticed on the bottom of the charge i got from them:

Following the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Parking Eye vs Beavis, it has now been established that a Parking Charge Notice issued on Private Land is enforceable. The Court rejected claims that such charges are extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable and advised that such charges act as a necessary deterrent for breach of contract. If you feel you have sufficient grounds to appeal this notice you will find full details of the appeals process overleaf.

Now, I've had a look round, and I can't help but feel that Highview are being - let's say "economical" - with the truth here. I found a thread on MSE from Jan 2016 (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5385908 that suggests reporting this to the BPA as it is disingenuous and attempting to mislead, but I'll admit I don't know the Beavis case or the associated law and decision well enough to come up with some words to use either in a letter to them, or the subsequent follow-up letter to the BPA and the DVLA (which I fully intend to send).

Can anyone point me in the direction of some guidance?

Coupon-mad

You will get nowhere with a BPA complaint about one of their beloved members using and abusing the Beavis case. Really, give it no further thought, they all use the Beavis case and it makes no odds. Not in this case because you will win on other points, probably 'no keeper liability' at POPLA stage or Highview might just give up when they see a forum appeal.

Are you planning to send a snail mail letter to Highview? It's not recommended. If the PCN allows online or email appeal then that is best, written by the registered keeper, not talking abut who was driving. You can use the template in the NEWBIES sticky thread.

Carthesis

Thanks for the reply. As I said, this isn't my first time through the PPC idiocy, so I'm happy enough with the Appeal and subsequent PoPLA follow-up.

I wasn't solely going to write to the BPA - I was going to notify the DVLA of a breach also by one of their "accredited" ATAs. The BPA may well not pay much attention, but they can't then say they haven't been notified of the breach. Similarly, the DVLA may not be able to say much, but if they get enough complaints about this sort of thing its something they shouldn't ignore.

As I say, I wasn't expecting anything back from either of them, barring the satisfaction of knowing I've made the complaint. Enough of them becomes a hard thing to ignore.

Carthesis

I've decided that I shall simply submit the appeal online, and follow it up with a snail-mail letter so I have a record of what has been sent.

I decided to go with the following, which is an expanded version of the template (and a more concise version of my previous letter, which is somewhat of a blunt instrument):

Dear Highview Parking Ltd.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle (registration xx yy xxx) concerned on the correspondence detailed above, I have received your speculative parking invoice, which I decline your invitation to pay.
I deny any and all liability to your company, and wish to invoke your appeals process on the basis of the following:
i. In your correspondence, you allege that the driver of the vehicle "was recorded on our client’s property at xxxxxxxx". Unfortunately, you have provided no evidence of these allegations. Two photographs have been provided with your invoice, however neither image shows the vehicle definitively in the location you allege.
ii. The ‘Charge Notice’ is being treated as a Notice to Keeper, and as such, it does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of PoFA (2012) – specifically the requirements of sub paragraphs 2 (c), relating to “the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers)” and 2 (h) relating to the “identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made”.
iii. Your signage does not comply with your ATA Code of Practice, specifically with regard to clear notification of the usage of ANPR-recorded data, as required by paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice;
iv. As stated in your ‘Charge Notice’, you are not the landowner and as a result do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass;
v. From your ‘Charge Notice’, it is my understanding that you do not own the car park, and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on-site businesses, to cancel such a charge. You are required to supply that policy as stated in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation as you have omitted clear information about the process for complaints including a geographical address of the landowner;
vi. Further to items ii. and v. above, your ‘Charge Notice’ does not make clear which of your “Terms and Conditions” the driver is alleged to have breached. A subsequent visit to the site of the alleged contravention made upon receipt of your Notice shows the allowable “free parking time” to be 90 mins, which by your own admission, has not been exceeded.
Your speculative invoice is clearly frivolous, poorly constructed, does not supply the required information for either the driver or the registered keeper to discern the breach you allege. It further shows flagrant disregard for the Code of Practice of your ATA, as well as for the law governing such notices.
I therefore invite you to withdraw your speculative invoice via issuance of a cancellation letter. If you do not wish to cancel this invoice, I will require notification via return letter detailing your reasons for rejection of my offer to cancel, which must state:
a) The ‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ (PoPLA) verification code (or other appropriate information) to be used for any subsequent appeals on my part as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question.
b) The basis of your charge (i.e. breach of contract, trespass or contractual fee) as your recent invoice failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.
Any obfuscation on your part, such as stating I have to name the driver; alleging I am too late or unable to appeal as keeper; or requiring more evidence when clearly I have already set out my full challenge for this stage, will be reported to the DVLA and to your respective ATA. There will be no admission as to the driver of the vehicle at the time in question, and no assumptions or inferences should be drawn as a result.
Further. as a result of your unsupported, unsolicited invoice, I will be raising with both the landowner, your ATA and the DVLA my concerns regarding your legal contractual status to issue such documents on their behalf; your seeming casual disregard for the Code of Practice produced by your own ATA; and your current non-compliance with the various laws governing contracts and the management of car parks on private.
Please note that I have retained both a copy of this letter, and proof of submission (by proof of postage) of this letter as my appeal. I look forward to your response.

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks good enough for Highview to possibly bow out, even now. Like Smart Parking, sometimes Highview just move on to another victim and throw in the towel.

Carthesis

Pleased to say Highview backed down with barely a peep.

The_Deep

Personally, I think that every misuse of the SC judgement should be complained. Even if the BPA brush it under the carpet, it costs them money to do so.

Carthesis

The_Deep wrote: »

Personally, I think that every misuse of the SC judgement should be complained. Even if the BPA brush it under the carpet, it costs them money to do so.

I agree. I think it should be notified to the DVLA too as a breach of the KADOE contract due to misrepresentations as well. They can only ignore so many of them, especially when people start making FoI requests to DVLA re: the number of complaints they have had about PPCs on the basis of breach of ATA COP and misrepresentations of this sort.

The FoI data can then be provided to various people / journos etc. to demonstrate that DVLA simply don't care (as if more evidence were needed) and are simply trying to protect a revenue stream. They obviously aren't going to do anything without being shamed into it.

I just wish I had the time to actually do so.

That and the fact that I've not looked into the Beavis case in any real detail, because I'm not a legal beagle and thus find the ruling hard to understand, and to determine exactly what it does and does not apply to, and how that can be used as a stick in certain circumstances.

If someone were to do so and provide a simplified bullet-point type list so that people could craft their own letters to DVLA and the ATAs (to avoid forum-template defences) then I'd be happy to send off a couple of letters to help the cause.