Help with POPLA appeal

kernowmex

Hi to all MSE forum members,

I am trying to get some help with a POPLA appeal that I need to summit very soon; I have got a POPLA code as I challenged the ANPR Charge Notice from CP Plus but, of course, they rejected my appeal. I have written my POPLA appeal letter as below, please let me know what you think. Thanks

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I wish to appeal a recent parking charge (PCN No:) as the registered keeper of vehicle “Nissan GTR” which registration number, VRM:, using POPLA code shown above.
I was very surprised to receive a 'Charge Notice' for my vehicle. I challenged this ‘PCN’ as keeper of the car but my appeal was rejected by CP Plus.

The alleged breach occurred at Manchester Costa Services on XX/XX/XX at 2:30AM. After a long journey from Glasgow the car stopped at such place for the occupants of the vehicle to have a rest while on the way to Bristol

My appeal is based on the points below:


1. Signage

The alleged breach occurred during the early hours of the morning (02:30AM) and the signs were not visible (readable) or illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself was not illuminated as the public lighting was off. These are not a mitigating circumstances but failure by CP plus to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict prove that those signs are visible at the time of darkness.
The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:
There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision. Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. Clearly none of these conditions were met

Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. As it can be seen in the Charge Notice (xx.pdf attachment) CP Plus sign does not specify any charges for parking or charges for breaching parking regulations and it did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible (lit), at the mention time (02:30AM), or from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.

2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

CP Plus does not adhere to POFA 2012:
• The Charge Notice does not state that is a Notice to Keeper as required and fails to meet the conditions to Keepers Liability.
• CP Plus failed to comply with BPA requirements section 19.4 If you want to enforce a parking charge notice under the keeper liability provisions of POFA 2012 you will need to show how you brought the requirement to pay parking charges to the attention of drivers. See paragraphs 2 (2) and (3) of Schedule 4. Referring to the Charge Notice (See XX.pdf) and the copy of the sign that CP Plus reproduced on the parking charge, it does not state that a charge of £100 applies which makes the charge is invalid.

• Furthermore, Section 18.4 of BPA Code: If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes:
• specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking
• adequately bringing the charges to the attention of
drivers, and
• following any applicable government signage regulations.
As it can be seen on the sign of the XX.pdf such signs don’t comply with the regulation.

• No Keeper liability, there has been no admission on who was driving the vehicle and no evidence on this have been provided. Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 strictly requires the issue of Notice to Keeper compliant with specific provisions:
-The Charge Notice sent by CP Plus does not identify them as the Creditor.

-The Notice to keeper (See XX.pdf) fails to state the “period” of parking, as required in POFA paragraph 8(2)(a), it only points out when the vehicle entered and exit the car park.

-The parking charge does not provide any evidence where the car was parked.



3. Contract

There was no contract between myself and CP Plus. As pointed out above, the signage as viewed from the parking spot or at the entrance to the area where the car was parked was not visible; so the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc were not satisfied. In that respect, I cannot have agreed to parking conditions that I did not have a knowledge of because the signs were not visible. The sign attached on the original Charge Notice (See CN.pdf) is not compliant, nor establishes the terms to create a contract.


4. Genuine Customer

For many years (decades) I have been a genuine customer of MC Services and I have never overstayed or abused the parking regulations on this car park and I find very distressful that I am being charged this amount of money and harassed by a third party company which claims to act on their behalf. This, so called, parking breach occurred by the necessity of having to rest on a long journey and not being made aware of the parking restrictions because of the lack of signage or illumination on them.


5. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

CP Plus is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require CP Plus to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It does not show my vehicle parked anywhere in the car park.


6. Pre-estimative loss

The parking charge (£100) is not a genuine pre estimate of loss when they are willing to cut it to £60 if paid within 14 days. Furthermore, after reading MC Services parking terms and conditions on their website, CP Plus have a parking fee of £12.50 (2-24Hrs) after 2 hours, making this car park a pay for car park after the stated time of two hours, unlike any other retail car parks. This parking charge is punitive as CP Plus fees of £12.50, for 2-24Hours parking, establishes that all their cost are covered by this fee.

7. CP Plus has no contractual authority / Authority to Issue Tickets

In the notices they have sent me, CP Plus have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park in question. Also, they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. CP Plus contract with the Land owner needs to state that CP Plus are entitled to pursue matters such as the issue of Parking Charge Notices and enforce them through the courts in their (land owner) own name. This should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract or agreement exists. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between CP Plus and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and it will therefore be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, I specially ask whether the land owner allows CP Plus to pursue genuine customers with demands for payments regarding parking charges or whether there are clauses regarding first time breaches.

Fruitcake

I've only skim read it but you should remove 6, as GPEOL these days will not win at all, and an assessor might even reject an appeal because they are blinded by the Beavis case and look at nothing else.

As far as ANPR is concerned, the signage must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is a breach of BPA CoP and ICO regulations.

A pic of the signage would be useful as there may be other infractions such as font size, or the use of premium rate 'phone numbers or additional unfair card charges.

kernowmex

Many Thanks Fruitcake! I will do

Gadfium

Have you spoken with the manager of the branch to see if you can get it cancelled?

Also, remove anything that would identify you as the driver. If you say that you are the driver then its pretty much game over. So change thinks like this "For many years (decades) I have been a genuine customer of MC Services and I have never overstayed or abused the parking regulations on this car park and I find very distressful that I am being charged this amount of money and harassed by a third party company which claims to act on their behalf." to take out the "I"
In fact, I'd take out that whole paragraph as it is mitigation which POPLA will ignore.

kernowmex

Thanks Gadfium, I added that paragraph as Parking Cowboys suggest on their website that POPLA might consider that, as contracts between the parking company and land owner might have clauses on first time breaches

kernowmex

I won at POPLA, thank you for all help and information within the forum, without it I would have been lost looking for advice. See below:

Dear "Kernow Mex"

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXXX.

CP Plus have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.


Yours sincerely


POPLA Team