We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
Appeal written could use suggestions on improvements suggestions
Options
chrisjose1913
Posts: 40 Forumite
1: No contract with driver
Evidence in the public realm has indicated that the address used by Armtrac Security Services TR20 9WD does not exist or is out of date Royal Mail has stated that the PO box used by Armtrac Security Services has not been paid for and TR20 9WD is apparently not a valid postcode. This can be confirmed on the royal mail website.
Further more MBC Parking Solutions LTD use the same address, MBC Parking Solutions LTD still display the It world in the public realm has suggested Companies house had been informed and MBC have acknowledged the addresses are either out of date of fictional and will be updating their registry.
The telephone number is nothing more than a payment line and does not deal with anything other than payments to the company, therefore communication is difficult with this company.
As a result of Armtac Security Services using a false post code the following below, have not been met.
Requirements of a company under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation
and
Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
SCHEDULE 2 Regulations 10(1) and 13(1)
Information relating to distance and off-premises contracts
The information referred to in regulations 10(1) and 13(1) is (subject to the note at the end of
this
Schedule)—
(a) the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium
of communication and to the goods or services;
(b) the identity of the trader (such as the trader’s trading name);
© the geographical address at which the trader is established and, where available, the
trader’s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, to enable the consumer to
contact the trader quickly and communicate efficiently;
(d) where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and
identity of that other trader;
(e) if different from the address provided in accordance with paragraph ©, the geographical
address of the place of business of the trader, and, where the trader acts on behalf of
another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader,
where the consumer can address any complaints;
(f) the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods
or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner
in which the price is to be calculated.
I understand that if the address is incorrect then no contract was formed between the operator
and the driver/keeper.
2. Contract with Landowner
The Operator does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence in their PPC evidence pack/rebuttal to my popla appeal that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets. In order to comply with the BPA code of practise, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons;
2a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practise to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers. b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provides a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency. Should a basic contract be produced mentioning parking charge notices, 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 the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.
Word in the public realm suggests Armtrac Security Systems are a case in point. Armtrac lost all POPLA appeals because they were never able to show they had correct authority from the landowner.
it has been revealed they do not have a written contract in at least one of their car parks, and none of the other contracts That have been seen gives them authority to issue parking charges.
3: Non compliant Formal Demand Letter no keeper liability established under POFA 2012
The ‘Formal Demand Letter’ (as described by the Operator) does not constitute a Notice to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability has been established. In particular the Operator has- • Failed to repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f). [Para 8(2)(c)] • Failed to specify whether the parking charges specified in notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) has been paid in part and specify the amount that remains unpaid in the notice to keeper [Para 8 (2)(d)] • Failed to inform me as keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment [Para 8(2)(g)] • Failed to inform me as keeper of any arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available under independent adjudication or arbitration [Para 8 (8)(b)] • Failed to identify the creditor [Para 8(2) (h)] The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and the mandatory detail and wording to ensure a NTK is compliant are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of statute, not contract law. Any omission or failure to set out the mandatory NTK wording will result in no 'keeper liability'.
A such the Operator has not provided a valid Notice to Keeper within the 28 day period as specified by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. As a result I can not be held at liability for these charges. Furthermore the company must send the notice to keeper within 28 days of the PCN being issued, Even if the letter complied with POFA 2012 it was not sent out until a total of 77 days had passed meaning the letter was 49 days overdue.
Photo prof can be found below showing the letter formate and date.
4: The Creditor
The Notice I have received make it clear that Armtrac security services is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. Armtrac security services has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be Armtac Security Services or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”! The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, Armtac Security Services has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions
4: Armtrac Security Services attempts to impede the appeal process
The Date of the rejection letter sent by Armtrac Security Services is is dated 23rd of December 2014 and also the date the appeal code was generated. The date stamped at the Truro mail centre is the 14th of January 2015, this means Armtrac Security Services had delayed the letter by a total of 22 days before sending it out and 25 days before receiving it 2nd class. To my understanding I only have 28 days from the date on the letter To submit an appeal. As the letter arrived on the 15th in the envelop! photographed I can only assume I had less than five days to get this evidence ready. Armtrac Security Services may try and blame royal mail for this, however after searching the internet I have found many reports of people receiving latter late.
Lynsey !Fri, 7 Nov 2014 on the pepipoo forums reported to have appealed to Armtrac Security Services this user quoted “
which surprise surprise was rejected and they now say their decision is final and she now needs to pay £100 within 14 days. Interestingly the letter is dated the 18th October - but we didn't receive it until 4th November”.
Sheri Winter Berry 1st Dec 14 on the moneysavingexpert forums reported to have appealed to Armtrac Security Services
this user quoted
“I received the notice rejecting my claim, however the notice was written on the 5th of November and posted 2nd class on the 28th of November.”
There are many other cases of this that can be found on the internet, this is clearly not an isolated incidence but Armtrac Security Services attempting to imped the appeals process.
This is clearly either an ongoing scam, or a failure to run a parking business properly. Armtrac Security Services use dodgy tactics to time motorists out of POPLA appeals
Furthermore the letter I received had an incorrect postcode, the postcode on the letter and envelope is TR209WD despite the fact my post code is this can also delay the letter arriving or prevent is arriving at all.
On the 21st of October 2016 I received a letter from POPLA explaining that POPLA had received a case file from KBT Cornwall limited t/as Armtrac Security Services. It also advised The I should have received one to. However Armtrac Security Services have failed to provide me with a copy of this case file, and as such I am unable to rebuttal any new comments or issues that may have been raised by the company since the original case file was sent when this appeal was first started. The letter has advised me to contact the company should I not receive this letter but as mentioned in point number 1 communication is difficult and a slow process.
I have provided photo prof below showing the letter date and envelope stamp date.
Evidence in the public realm has indicated that the address used by Armtrac Security Services TR20 9WD does not exist or is out of date Royal Mail has stated that the PO box used by Armtrac Security Services has not been paid for and TR20 9WD is apparently not a valid postcode. This can be confirmed on the royal mail website.
Further more MBC Parking Solutions LTD use the same address, MBC Parking Solutions LTD still display the It world in the public realm has suggested Companies house had been informed and MBC have acknowledged the addresses are either out of date of fictional and will be updating their registry.
The telephone number is nothing more than a payment line and does not deal with anything other than payments to the company, therefore communication is difficult with this company.
As a result of Armtac Security Services using a false post code the following below, have not been met.
Requirements of a company under the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation
and
Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
SCHEDULE 2 Regulations 10(1) and 13(1)
Information relating to distance and off-premises contracts
The information referred to in regulations 10(1) and 13(1) is (subject to the note at the end of
this
Schedule)—
(a) the main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium
of communication and to the goods or services;
(b) the identity of the trader (such as the trader’s trading name);
© the geographical address at which the trader is established and, where available, the
trader’s telephone number, fax number and e-mail address, to enable the consumer to
contact the trader quickly and communicate efficiently;
(d) where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and
identity of that other trader;
(e) if different from the address provided in accordance with paragraph ©, the geographical
address of the place of business of the trader, and, where the trader acts on behalf of
another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader,
where the consumer can address any complaints;
(f) the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods
or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner
in which the price is to be calculated.
I understand that if the address is incorrect then no contract was formed between the operator
and the driver/keeper.
2. Contract with Landowner
The Operator does not own the land in question and has provided no evidence in their PPC evidence pack/rebuttal to my popla appeal that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary or agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets. In order to comply with the BPA code of practise, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons;
2a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract nor that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practise to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers. b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provides a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency. Should a basic contract be produced mentioning parking charge notices, 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 the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.
Word in the public realm suggests Armtrac Security Systems are a case in point. Armtrac lost all POPLA appeals because they were never able to show they had correct authority from the landowner.
it has been revealed they do not have a written contract in at least one of their car parks, and none of the other contracts That have been seen gives them authority to issue parking charges.
3: Non compliant Formal Demand Letter no keeper liability established under POFA 2012
The ‘Formal Demand Letter’ (as described by the Operator) does not constitute a Notice to Keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such no keeper liability has been established. In particular the Operator has- • Failed to repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f). [Para 8(2)(c)] • Failed to specify whether the parking charges specified in notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) has been paid in part and specify the amount that remains unpaid in the notice to keeper [Para 8 (2)(d)] • Failed to inform me as keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment [Para 8(2)(g)] • Failed to inform me as keeper of any arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available under independent adjudication or arbitration [Para 8 (8)(b)] • Failed to identify the creditor [Para 8(2) (h)] The requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and the mandatory detail and wording to ensure a NTK is compliant are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of statute, not contract law. Any omission or failure to set out the mandatory NTK wording will result in no 'keeper liability'.
A such the Operator has not provided a valid Notice to Keeper within the 28 day period as specified by Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. As a result I can not be held at liability for these charges. Furthermore the company must send the notice to keeper within 28 days of the PCN being issued, Even if the letter complied with POFA 2012 it was not sent out until a total of 77 days had passed meaning the letter was 49 days overdue.
Photo prof can be found below showing the letter formate and date.
4: The Creditor
The Notice I have received make it clear that Armtrac security services is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. Armtrac security services has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be Armtac Security Services or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”! The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, Armtac Security Services has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions
4: Armtrac Security Services attempts to impede the appeal process
The Date of the rejection letter sent by Armtrac Security Services is is dated 23rd of December 2014 and also the date the appeal code was generated. The date stamped at the Truro mail centre is the 14th of January 2015, this means Armtrac Security Services had delayed the letter by a total of 22 days before sending it out and 25 days before receiving it 2nd class. To my understanding I only have 28 days from the date on the letter To submit an appeal. As the letter arrived on the 15th in the envelop! photographed I can only assume I had less than five days to get this evidence ready. Armtrac Security Services may try and blame royal mail for this, however after searching the internet I have found many reports of people receiving latter late.
Lynsey !Fri, 7 Nov 2014 on the pepipoo forums reported to have appealed to Armtrac Security Services this user quoted “
which surprise surprise was rejected and they now say their decision is final and she now needs to pay £100 within 14 days. Interestingly the letter is dated the 18th October - but we didn't receive it until 4th November”.
Sheri Winter Berry 1st Dec 14 on the moneysavingexpert forums reported to have appealed to Armtrac Security Services
this user quoted
“I received the notice rejecting my claim, however the notice was written on the 5th of November and posted 2nd class on the 28th of November.”
There are many other cases of this that can be found on the internet, this is clearly not an isolated incidence but Armtrac Security Services attempting to imped the appeals process.
This is clearly either an ongoing scam, or a failure to run a parking business properly. Armtrac Security Services use dodgy tactics to time motorists out of POPLA appeals
Furthermore the letter I received had an incorrect postcode, the postcode on the letter and envelope is TR209WD despite the fact my post code is this can also delay the letter arriving or prevent is arriving at all.
On the 21st of October 2016 I received a letter from POPLA explaining that POPLA had received a case file from KBT Cornwall limited t/as Armtrac Security Services. It also advised The I should have received one to. However Armtrac Security Services have failed to provide me with a copy of this case file, and as such I am unable to rebuttal any new comments or issues that may have been raised by the company since the original case file was sent when this appeal was first started. The letter has advised me to contact the company should I not receive this letter but as mentioned in point number 1 communication is difficult and a slow process.
I have provided photo prof below showing the letter date and envelope stamp date.
0
Comments
-
Trying to understand where you are at.On the 21st of October 2016 I received a letter from POPLA explaining that POPLA had received a case file from KBT Cornwall limited t/as Armtrac Security Services
Are you saying this is an old stayed case and you've had a letter from Wright Hassall 'posing as' POPLA? You will have next to no chance at this stage with WH making a decision, they are 'for' the parking firms which has been covered loads of times here (search the forum for 'WHOPLA' as our made up acronym).
Is this where you are? You should research court defences next as you will need them - Gladstones are easier to beat with a defence than this stage which never goes well, barring a miracle!
No-one is telling you to pay, though.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Please supply the background information concerning this. You have come in part way through the process so I'm not actually sure what it is you are trying to ask or where you are in the process.
When and where was the alleged incident. Did you get a windscreen ticket. Did you appeal as keeper if you did?
Did you get a NTK? If so when did you appeal, and was this as keeper?I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Trying to understand where you are at.
Are you saying this is an old stayed case and you've had a letter from Wright Hassall 'posing as' POPLA? You will have next to no chance at this stage with WH making a decision, they are 'for' the parking firms which has been covered loads of times here (search the forum for 'WHOPLA' as our made up acronym).
Is this where you are? You should research court defences next as you will need them - Gladstones are easier to beat with a defence than this stage which never goes well, barring a miracle!
No-one is telling you to pay, though.
According the popla Wright Hassall is no longer conducting the appeals due to a conflict of interest. either way the ticket relates to a permit offence back in 2014 I parked for a mere 5 minutes and the signs were in poor state.0 -
Please supply the background information concerning this. You have come in part way through the process so I'm not actually sure what it is you are trying to ask or where you are in the process.
When and where was the alleged incident. Did you get a windscreen ticket. Did you appeal as keeper if you did?
Did you get a NTK? If so when did you appeal, and was this as keeper?
As stated in the appeal i received a letter titled formal demand, the letter was sent 77 days after the PCN was issued.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »AFAIK that's only with Premier Park ones? Did you get a letter from 'actual' POPLA then?
Yes i did.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »AFAIK that's only with Premier Park ones? Did you get a letter from 'actual' POPLA then?
Okay just got of the phone with POPLA and they have confirmed russell hassall is nolonger conducting appeals and my appeal will be with POPLA themselves.
I also got an extension on the appeal, turns out the company never made changes the the case file and i have the old one so i am all good.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards