Horizon Parking Ticket

kayola

please how can i word and reference assessor's decisions. I am not sure whether this is the name: Eileen Loannou and 5963225583. How can i use it to strengthen my case?

kayola

I have researched the matter and would like to point out the following: please can you help me comment on this? is it ok


UNCLEAR, INADEQUATE AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE

Due to their high position, overall small size and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read, understand and no notices at all are positioned near the entrance or exists to any of the shops.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms (Horizon Parking Ltd) are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I request that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011 and Waltham Forest v Vine [CCRTF 98/1290/B2])


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE CHARGES

(Horizon Parking Ltd) do not own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, (Horizon Parking Ltd) have not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I would also request that POPLA to please check whether (Horizon Parking Ltd) have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists or someone has witnessed it) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in their own name and through the court system. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. I also request for the proof of those documents for me to also scrutinise the items.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC (EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that: "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court was that "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated, losses, as set out above.

(Horizon Parking Ltd) also make reference in their appeal refusal of (date) to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.

I further contend that (Horizon Parking Ltd) have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER

There is no contract between Horizon Parking Ltd and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.

UNFAIR TERMS

The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "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" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

UNREASONABLE

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "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.”

NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. On the date of the claimed loss it was only at 40% capacity and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can (Horizon Parking Limited) lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges of £15 for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 58% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.

UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .

The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.


SUMMARY

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Fruitcake

That is an old out of date appeal.

You have already been advised to look at the template PoPLA appeal points in Post 3 of the NEWBIES. Don't rush.

kayola

Thanks, i eventually got something on signage written by Coupon-Mad,though still struggling to get Post 3 in the Newbies but the write up by Coupon-Mad is the only point i can stand on now.But my question is do i need to go and take photography of the signs at the sit. Although i took one area there was no signage at all to strengthen my case. Kindly advice, i agree that what i sent before was not relevant again.

Fruitcake

As well as signage, you can also use No Landowner Authority from Post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Having your own photos of signs is always useful in case the parking company changes them. All signs must meet the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) but they rarely do. Get some photos and compare them with the CoP and you will find out how they fail to comply.

When using ANPR, the signs must state this is being used, and what the data will be used for. If this isn't on the signs at the site then it is a breach of the CoP, so you should add that as another appeal point.
ANPR inaccuracy should always be challenged.

Look also at the most recent successful appeals in the POPLA Decisions sticky thread at the top of the main page. Pick out any parts from these that are relevant to your case.

Have you complained to the retail manager yet? If not you should do that as soon as possible.

kayola

Thanks Fruitcake and Coupon-Mad I will be going to that site to take more photos, some areas have no signage, i will upload the pics so that you can point me to area i can focus on or lapses with their signage.

Thank you.

kayola

please how can i attached attachment, i have this pcns two by PPC above but i believe it has been duplicated: Entry time 07:49 exit 12.33
then Entry time 12:33 exit 17:17

it is not possible to enter back at the same time but how do i argue my case and that is why i want to attach the documents in view of the fact anpr could be faulty or ppc deliberately alter their machine.

Fruitcake

Upload the images to a web hosting site such as tinypic or photobucket. Don't use your real name to set up the free account. Make sure you cover up any personal information such as your name and address, PCN number, and vehicle registration.

Copy the URL of the image and post it here, but then change http to hxxp before you submit your reply.
Someone here will then change it back to a live link so it can be viewed.

kayola

http://http://s32.photobucket.com/upload/

http://s32.photobucket.com/upload/

kayola

[URL="http://s32.photobucket.com/upload/"

Above is the link

kindly help