Been sent parking fee notice by PPS

dllive

Hi guys,
OK, Ive written my appeal email. Its an amalgamation of the relevant template on the Newbie sticky post and post #5 on https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5545421 .

Dear Premier Parking Solutions

Re Parking Charge Reference: ###########

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company? I require their contact details and the full identity of the landowner.
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
4. Is your charge based on an agreed 'fee' for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no. If so, please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
5. Please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle.

I have attached to this email a scan of the parking ticket. I do note that there is a digit missing on the VRN which I presume is why you feel you can levy this fine. A reasonable person would never accept that a £100 fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple (and very easily reconciled within your own systems) problem of a single digit typo in a VRN that your ANPR system already has stored on entry. This sort of alleged 'contract' would clearly not have been upheld had PPS brought such a baseless case as far as the Supreme Court and indeed this sort of unfair, punitive charge is the very essence of the sort of simple contract that the Judges agreed could still be compared to Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty...and it is evidence that PPS' charge would fail.

To charge £100 over and above the (undisputed) paid tariff to a valid car park user whose ticket was paid for and displayed in good faith, is clearly not commercially justified by any stretch of the 'legitimate interests' excuse, other than punishing drivers for profit. Nor does it pass the tests of fairness and transparency and the commercial intent behind the mere instruction to 'type in a VRN' is hidden, rendering it a 'misleading omission' within Consumer law (Consumer Rights Act 2015 and CPUTRs 2008).

The fact is, the instructions were followed and paid and displayed. If there was a typo then it may have been my error or it may have been a fault with PPS' own keypad, or even a slip by your system in recording the letters & numbers that were typed in. Reasonable endeavours were made to comply with the instructions and if there was either a typo or in the alternative, a malfunction with the P&D machine's record, I cannot be called to account for that. It would be a simple matter for PPS to actually link the ANPR to the P&D machine and display an image of my car to confirm the correct vehicle (this is the case in some car parks using similar systems). If PPS took those steps then it would be impossible for anything other than a valid registration number to be printed on the ticket.

PPS are reminded of the 'Clean Hands Doctrine'. Even if a driver does make a mistake with their VRN, then this is certainly a known issue with such systems. The BPA were your former ATA and you are well aware that the applicable Code of Practice you used to be bound by when in their AOS, called upon operators using ANPR technology to make several checks before issuing PCNs to ensure charges were 'appropriate'.

Just because PPS is now in an ATA using a Code which appears to any reasonable person, to require far more lax standards, does not mean that you are enabled under current UK consumer law to 'sit on your hands' and smugly rack up £100 charges against drivers whose VRN errors would previously have been considered minor/easy to identify, such that PCNs would never have been issued under the BPA Code.

Your charge is also exposed as unfair under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the apparently innocuous requirement to type in a registration number 'fails to identify its commercial intent'. Entering the VRN is a mere instruction but nowhere is it clearly warned that this is an 'obligation' under contract, with onerous repercussions for any slip, even if caused by the keypad.

Two very recent claims by Excel Parking have been won by Defendants making a very similar point about these P&D machines and the finding was that they complied with the terms by 'paying and displaying' and no contractual obligation was breached:

C8DP11F9 - Excel v Mrs S - 09/09/2016, Oldham Court

C8DP36F0 - Excel v Ms C - 17/10/16, Stockport Court.


Further, be advised that if you try a small claim against me I will also assert that PPS' signs fail the requirement for transparency of terms (neither passing the tests under consumer law, nor passing ICO requirements re ANPR nor complying with your own ATA's Code of Practice) and do not meet the high bar set by the Beavis 'brief' and 'prominent' signage, which gave adequate notice of the parking charge and terms.

I will not be availing myself of any 'offer' to refer this to the IPC-funded 'IAS'. It is noted that the general consensus among consumers who have tried that dubious service is that it appears to be a 'kangaroo court' with bizarre anonymous decisions. The IAS calls itself 'ADR' yet the burden falls upon the consumer - not the claimant/operator - to prove their case and on their website it is admitted that 'the normal civil rules of evidence do not apply'. Even more concerning is the observation that the Directors of the IPC are the same people who run Gladstones Solicitors which raises a significant conflict of interests, should you try a small claim using that firm.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery', specifically prohibited by the POFA 2012 Schedule 4. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consent to my data being shared or processed by you or your agents.

I contend you have failed to establish keeper liability. So, to continue to process my data now that you have exhausted your only DVLA-allowed purpose (i.e. to invite me to name the driver, which I decline outright) would be wholly unreasonable and contrary to the Data Protection principles. To share, sell, store or process my data at all now you are aware that you have no further excuse or reasonable cause, will be data misuse and I will report you to the Information Commissioner.

I deny liability for any sum at all and you should consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. As such I urge you to cancel this charge and to remove my data from your systems.

Do not harass me with debt collector letters as an excuse to pluck additional 'costs' out of thin air and in an effort to intimidate me. Should you feel you have a case, then it should be progressed now, in order to mitigate costs and any such claim will be robustly defended.

You are required to respond within 21 days.

Yours faithfully,

######## ##########

1) Have I missed anything? (Im aware that I need to get all my defence arguments in at the first appeal).
2) Could I have worded anything better?
3) Should I include my full name, address and VRN, or is it sufficient to just include the Parking Charge Reference.
4) When is the best time to send the email? I received the Notice To Keeper letter on the 24th November.
5) On my ticket I have have the times the ticket was valid for as 11:02 - 13:02. On the letter they sent me they have me leaving at 12:40 - well before the time that my ticket was valid for. Is it worth including that?

Sorry for all the questions, but Im now in fight mode!

dllive

As a slight aside, Ive just been reading post no. 10 here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5437508 which is almost identical to my case.

Carthesis

1) You don't seem to have missed anything.

2) Only scan-read, but it seems fine.

3) I tend to always give my name, address, and to clarify that I am the RK of vehicle reg xx 22 xxx just so they can't plead ignorance.

4) If this is a response to a postal NTK, and there is no windscreen NTD to contend with, then it doesn't matter a jot when you send it.

5) Not really, because they'll just claim it was an admin error, and it'll be worthless to you for any argument short of taking it before a beak in small claims, and even then i'd be surprised if the case turned on that.

As an aside, not wanting to put down the work you've put in, this is a bit of wasted effort as IPC operators will simply auto-reject your first appeal without thinking about it properly. You might have been far better off saving some of these arguments for a court defence (should you need one at any point) and not tipping your hand.

Umkomaas

I agree with Carthesis, keep your powder dry. Just use the IPC template from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky.

dllive

Morning guys,
Im going to send the email template to PPS later. Before I do, can I ask a few questions:
1) what is the worst that could happen? Obviously their £60 will turn into £100. But could they ramp this up with debt recovery charges, court costs etc?
2) what are the chances of me going to small claims court? This is a daunting prospect.
3) If/when I start getting threatening letters and I ignore them, what then happens? They just stop arriving?
4) After reading what Beewi went through (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5437508) which is very similar to my case and is at the same car, she had the benefit of POPLA, and even she lost her appeal! (although it was overturned, but she didnt win it becuase she had a digit missing on her VRN). I dont have the benefit of POPLA which concerns me!
Thanks

DollyDee_2

Paragraph 5:

"The fact is, the instructions were followed and paid and displayed. If there was a typo then it may have been my error or it may have been a fault with PPS' own keypad, or even a slip by your system in recording the letters & numbers that were typed in. Reasonable endeavours were made to comply with the instructions and if there was either a typo or in the alternative, a malfunction with the P&D machine's record, I cannot be called to account for that. It would be a simple matter for PPS to actually link the ANPR to the P&D machine and display an image of my car to confirm the correct vehicle (this is the case in some car parks using similar systems). If PPS took those steps then it would be impossible for anything other than a valid registration number to be printed on the ticket."

I would change those 2 to "the driver". Or, change the first one to the driver and the second one to "I, as the registered keeper,"

Umkomaas

Morning guys,
Im going to send the email template to PPS later. Before I do, can I ask a few questions:
1) what is the worst that could happen? Obviously their £60 will turn into £100. But could they ramp this up with debt recovery charges, court costs etc?
2) what are the chances of me going to small claims court? This is a daunting prospect.
3) If/when I start getting threatening letters and I ignore them, what then happens? They just stop arriving?

1). They can't add debt recovery charges - they might try, but a court shouldn't allow those IF it got to court and IF you lost. Additional costs IF you lost at court would be PPS's filing fee (£35), capped solicitor costs - if they used one (£50) and a bit of travel costs. Around £200 total. Too many IFs at this stage for you to be overthinking this element.

2) Nationally it runs at about 1% of unpaid parking tickets. Many PPCs are getting court-frisky of late, but judges are getting more savvy to their escapades and we are seeing many claims being knocked back (or even discontinued a few days before the hearing). PPS have tried a few this year, but they are all very defendable with help from the forum.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Parking_Solutions.html

3) Debt collector letters will appear threatening, but debt collectors have no legal standing in this. You ignore the letters (but retain for future reference). You will be hit with a few over the first 6 months or so, after which they tend to dry up, apart from the occasional one out of the blue, designed as a 'we haven't gone away' frightener.

Do not ignore any court papers.

Coupon-mad

Usually £150 -£175 if someone actually loses at a hearing. But normally our defences see claims off and we've not seen a PPS one on here all year. So don't worry, far more likely that you will get more hamster bedding in letters every month or so.

You will miss 'em when they stop!

dllive

Thanks for all your comments/suggestions/advice thus far.

I see the second letter I can expect (second image here https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203684272-Premier-Parking-Solutions-Ltd) it to increase to £150!

Ive just been watching this, which, although is a few years old, explains the absolute basics of parking on private land (I thought this may be useful for someone): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTKVPwo06I

I think the bit that gave me solace is 1:45 where she says "....The charge cannot be disproportionate to the loss the company has suffered....". Seeing as I bought my ticket and still have it as proof and it shows theres 1 (frickin!) digit missing, I (and anyone with an ounce of common sense) would say £60 is wholly disproportionate!

Carthesis

dllive wrote: »

I think the bit that gave me solace is 1:45 where she says "....The charge cannot be disproportionate to the loss the company has suffered....". Seeing as I bought my ticket and still have it as proof and it shows theres 1 (frickin!) digit missing, I (and anyone with an ounce of common sense) would say £60 is wholly disproportionate!

Beavis blew this out of the water to some extent, after the Supreme Court ruled that £85 wasn't unconscionable as an amount considering the purpose as a deterrant - although that admittedly was highly specific case.