Time Limits for PCN

Redx

you can ignore the PPC now , and draft your popla appeal

post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread explains all of this procedure and suggests templates to use

so your lack of research and reading is now holding you back

please read and follow post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread, draft a popla appeal (no names or references yet) , then post it on here for critique

Coupon-mad

Shouldn't i just tell them that I did buy a ticket but didn't enter the reg number and the car park was all but empty maybe 2 cars in it. They can then check their records for tickets purchased with 10 mins of my arrival.

Riiiiiight - going on about who parked & what happened, unpicking the whole point of the first appeal and blowing out your 'slam dunk' winning POPLA appeal point of being the lessee/hirer (driver not admitted)?

Or else I can just go straight to POPLA?

Of course. You have 28 days to use the code.

This is so easy, you simply need a POPLA appeal that cites para 13/14 of the POFA Schedule 4 and talks about no paperwork arriving with the postal Notice to Keeper so it cannot be deemed a Notice to Hirer. Therefore as hirer, you can't be held liable AND THE DRIVER HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED.

I am sure Edna Basher has written such a POPLA appeal on here before. All you need to do is search the forum for 'POPLA hirer liability paragraph 13' and you'd be looking at a shining example.

bluebaron

Thanks so something like this:

I was the Lessee of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the parking charge. I believe that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that all these points be considered.


1. Parking Eye never supplied the necessary documents to comply with POFA 2012 so therefore failed to meet the requirements to invoke keeper liability

I refer to the Parking Charge Notice issued to me by Parking Eye. I confirm that as the Lessee of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and I formally challenge the validity of this Parking Charge Notice. You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA which have to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge.
Parking Eye’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular There is no liability for the Hirer of the vehicle because Parking Eye failed to supply the necessary hire documentation with the Parking Charge Notice sent. Therefore Parking Eye have not complied with POFA 2012 to invoke keeper liability. The notice to hirer must include a copy of the signed Lease Agreement . If not sent with the Parking Charge Notice Parking Eye cannot hold the Lessee liable under the Protection of Freedom Act.

None of the three documents referred to in POFA 2012 Chapter 9 Schedule 4 (2) a b and c were ever sent to me .The requirements of Paragraph 9 have to be met to hold the keeper liable so once again if the notice to hirer did not include a copy of the signed Lease agreement the Lessee cannot be liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act.`

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Chapter 9 Schedule 4
Hire vehicles
13(1)This paragraph applies in the case of parking charges incurred in respect of the parking of a vehicle on relevant land if—
(a) the vehicle was at the time of parking hired to any person under a hire agreement with a vehicle-hire firm; and
(b) the keeper has been given a notice to keeper within the relevant period for the purposes of paragraph 8(4) or 9(4) (as the case may be).
(2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given—
(a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;
(b) a copy of the hire agreement; and
(c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.


2..The Car Park had Confusing Unclear ambiguous inadequate signage not compliant with the BPA Standards creating unreasonable and unfair terms with no valid contract formed with Parking Eye and therefore no agreement to pay £100


I believe the signs that Parking Eye are relying on were confusing and the small print too small for anyone to see read or understand whilst in this car park. The signs appeared to fail in that they did not properly and clearly warn and inform the terms of this car park correctly and as such failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. as follows:

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a license or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

It was not clear to the driver that a registration number should be entered or a fine would be imposed. For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.


3. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss The amount is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified

This was no agreed contract and the sum is unfair, unreasonable and unrecoverable.
This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgement .The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate.

This charge is for an alleged breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified, that Parking Eye who are the non-land-owning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages.

Unlike in Beavis, it is argued that this charge has been artificially inflated and Parking Eye have failed to disengage the 'penalty rule' by virtue of a want of good faith and also a failure in their duty to deal fairly with consumers and a failure to follow the requirements of their industry’s Code of Practice. £100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff. Parking Eye cannot justify how an alleged 1 hopur of parking in an empty car park incurred a loss of £100. They have failed to justify and supply sufficient evidence to justify this cost because of the plain fact that it is unjustifiable; it is an arbitrary figure that they have invented, And there is no commercial justification as the landholder has no incentive to maintain turnover of spaces at that location. As such it is an unenforceable penalty. Once again Beavis cannot apply in this location.
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. An Operator cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has lost as a result of the car being parked at the car park, is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.
AND any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility . As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.
case. As this was a Paying car park, the Notice to Keeper has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed.
On the Notice To Keeper it only states that the car was in the car park for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was an overstay or failure to pay.
Also there is no commercial justification to ensure traffic turnover on the site as a motorist can stay longer in the car park if required and in fact can stay all day and night if they wish by paying £10.



4. Parking Eye have no Standing or Authority to form parking contracts or enforce them in court in their own name

Parking Eye have no authority to issue parking contracts nor to pursue to court, as required in the BPA code of practice. The Parking Eye Contract should be with the Landowner and not a company leasing the land.

As Parking Eye do not own the Car Park and are not the landowners please ask Parking Eye to provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of their contract with the landholder which would then demonstrate that Parking Eye have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in their own name or on behalf of the landowner who can then support their claim. I dispute they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising. Any loss is to the landowner and only they can bring action.

I believe that Parking Eye have no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, or to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such Parking Eye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore would ask that Parking Eye provide proof to POPLA and myself with an unredacted contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Eye and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye.

A witness statement would be insufficient


6.
Time in the Car Park is not a period of Parking.
The motorist must be given time to park and read the signs and find a ticket machine and have time to leave the site at the end of parking .
And also search for a member of the Parking Team to enquire about anything that is confusing about the sign.
The ticket is also confusing as when you take a ticket out of the machine it is no indication on when you entered the car park and when you should get back to your vehicle , as the only information on the ticket is the time you put your registration number into the machine.
Therefore it is not indicative of the time entering the car park and cannot be used as accurate reference as does not state when the free period ends.. The signs say to take a ticket after putting in your registration but it does accept any registration put in so there is no room for error. Also the small print on the machines take ages to read and a person may even need to then go back to collect glasses from their car as the print is so tiny.
The British Parking Association Code of Practice states the motorist must be given time to read the signs and time to leave the site at end of parking . Although the code states 11 minutes each way.
The grace period can be an arbitary number as in certain cases this can take longer depending on the circumstances for example in this car park there are only two ticket machines on the ground floor close together (although in 2012 Parking Eye stated they would be placing more machines in the car park-this never happened) and one ticket machine on the upper floor .
At busy times the queue can be so long that people are having to wait in excess of the 11 minutes just to put their number in a ticket machine to receive a ticket that is useless and most people throw away.

Time in car park? Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of POFA stipulates This is a mandatory piece of information which should be included in the Notice to Hirer/Kee

On the basis of all the points I have raised the parking charge notice fails to meet standards set in the British Parking Association Code of Practice .I reject the charge and would appreciate that you review all my points and allow the appeal

Fruitcake

You nee numbered headings that correspond with your appeal points.

The inadequate signage point is too short. You should use the very long template appeal point from post 3 of the NEWBIES instead.

You don't have a point 5.

You need to proof read and correct some typos as well.

bluebaron

I can see why people give up on all this! but appreciate all the advice you guys and girls are offering.

My real appeal point is that i brought a ticket but didn't enter a reg number hence my ticket, however I'm trying to follow the templates and points you folks suggest.

Coupon-Mad said i should appeal on the hirer points, paragraph 13/14 so shall i just delete everything and rely on that one point!

Redx

never admit to a failure , its their job to ensure their machines only allow correct inputs, but its not an appeal poing

appeal points are legala rguments, but if it went before a judge then maybe your point would be valid, if you are admitting who the driver was (we normally dont recommend naming the driver, or inferring who was driving)

it is the job of the PPC to prove their case , dont do it for them

it is YOUR JOB to proof read what you have pasted in , becasue people here wont read thousands of words and comment if its all incorrect and full of spelling mistakes or errors

anything you place on here should be what you believe to be the finished article, or people will ignore it and help somebody else

Coupon-mad

Remove this phrase:

The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

and add the other template from the NEWBIES thread post #3 which says the appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable (driver).

You will win! Hire/lease/company car appeals win at POPLA because no PPC follows para 13/14.

bluebaron

Thanks again for all help are you referring to this passage:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287626&postcount=2342

I've been at this for days now all because I didn't put the right reg in the bloody machine!

Coupon-mad

Yes that's the one, bung that in. You will win so it is worth the fight, on principle!