PCN from CPP

Panzellus

I was an authorised visitor in the sense of I parked at my place of work (university campus). I usually use alternate transportation, but had to drive in that one day and would have happily purchased a permit for that day (minimum permit length is 1 month, but that still would have been fine), but obviously I couldn't.

Ideally, I'd prefer to not get my manager involved in this as it's just not something I would like to waste their time with. Given that it's my place of work, could I still use the point about CPP making it impossible to display a permit on the first visit?

Coupon-mad

Yes I would include it and say it's your place of work and you were fully authorised and have nothing in your work contract that requires you to display a permit or pay parking charges which you understand are for visitors only, and if CPP don't operate a workable model that identifies staff cars on a day-to-day basis as authorised and exempt, that's not your problem because your work contract is between you and the University, and gives you primacy of contract at this location.

Maybe also embed an image of some sort of proof of your post at the Uni as well (if a wageslip, cover up the important stuff!!).

The idea is with this random point, to make it harder for CPP to rebut it. They will try and they might win, because the driver has been admitted it's always harder.

Panzellus

Please find below the updated version of point #2. I wrote it in the third person, even though I've admitted to being the drive, since the rest of the appeal is in third person. My appeal window is over in the next couple of days, so I am aiming to submit by the end of tomorrow. Thank you again for all the help.

2. No evidence any contravention took place or that the driver was not an ‘Authorised Visitor’

There is no evidence that any contravention took place or that the driver was not an ‘Authorised Visitor’ and POPLA cannot assume this in the absence of facts and evidence from the operator.

The driver was an authorised visitor of [university] but CPP make it impossible to display a permit on the first visit, which is unfair and causes frustration of contract – therefore there is no enforceable contract in law. Permits can only be purchased online, and it can only start from the next day, so it's not possible to buy one on the day, even though the driver does fulfil the requirement to be an 'authorised visitor'.

The drive is a [role] at [university] and since it is their place of work, they were fully authorised and have nothing in their work contract that requires them to display a permit or pay parking charges which the driver understands are for visitors only. If CPP do not operate a workable model that identifies staff cars on a day-to-day basis as authorised and exempt, that is not the problem of the driver because their work contract is between them and the University, and gives them primacy of contract at this location.

Coupon-mad

The driver is a [role] at [university]

Typo above.

Also, as you've said you understand that the charges and rules only relate to visitors, find another word here to describe the driver, not 'visitor'!

The driver was an authorised visitor of [university]

Panzellus

Thanks for the quick reply.

I've fixed the typo in my draft document.

I've also removed the descriptor and reworded:

'The driver was authorised to be at [university] but CPP make it impossible to display a permit on the first visit, which is unfair and causes frustration of contract – therefore there is no enforceable contract in law.'

Coupon-mad

Yes that is about the best way to argue it. POPLA aren't very good with such things, but we'll see.

Panzellus

Thanks for all the help again. I'll send the appeal off tonight as per the instructions on the Parking Prankster's website. I'll post back when I get the POPLA decision.

Panzellus

It may be a coincidence, but all the bushes/trees that were obscuring the signs in the car park (that I took photos of) are being trimmed this morning. This greatly amused me on my way in.

Umkomaas

Panzellus wrote: »

It may be a coincidence, but all the bushes/trees that were obscuring the signs in the car park (that I took photos of) are being trimmed this morning. This greatly amused me on my way in.

And which supports forum advice to always get own photographs as soon as a PCN is issued, as things can change so rapidly, not often to the benefit of the motorist.

Panzellus

Hello. I've received the evidence pack from CPP (via POPLA website) and drafted my rebuttal, which is below. I do have some questions, and again thank you in advance:

1) I have yet to receive the evidence pack from CPP themselves. Should I comment about this? As I said above, I only got it from the POPLA website itself.

2) CPP have submitted photos of my car and where it was parked, but when I initially appealed to CPP about the PCN, there were no photos in their log of my PCN. Should I comment about this?

3) In their evidence pack, CPP have a "Final Signage Plan" with their own letterhead on it. It just states the account manager and the date the signage plan was created. The boxes for 'Approved by' and the 'Date' [approve by] are blank - is there any scope for commenting here?

4) I think I read on these forums somewhere that I can email my comments in if they're over 2000 characters. I would just like to check that this is still okay?

POPLA Ref: [number]
CPP Parking PC no: [number]

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

In response to the 27 page “evidence pack” Car Parking Partnership (CPP) have submitted, I have the following points of rebuttal:

1. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge
2. Poor and obscured signage

1. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge

Page 5 of the evidence pack from CPP states the following:

‘Car Parking Partnership can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).’

This is the only “evidence” CPP have submitted which claims they have landowner authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices. This evidence is worthless and nowhere else in the pack do CPP provide actual evidence that they have a landowner contract or specifically a signed and dated contract with the landowner. CPP have failed to prove that they have the authority to issue Parking Charge Notices at the site in question which means the Parking Charge Notice issued to the driver is invalid - I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed.

2. Poor and obscured signage

The bottom-left photograph in the evidence pack from CPP show the vehicle with registration [number] parked in a bay with a parking sign behind it. A photo of this sign was also submitted in my appeal (it is the last photo). In both the evidence from CPP and myself, the sign is shown to obscured by a branch over the bottom half, making it impossible to read a significant portion of the text. I also submitted photographs of the other nearby signs which were all also obscured in some manner.

Furthermore, I also argued in the appeal that the sign is too high and the text is too small, this makes it impossible to read. I believe both of these arguments are supported by the evidence that CPP provided. Firstly, the sign is shown to be too high in the photograph supplied by CPP, which makes it challenging to read due to how much your head needs to be angled upwards. Secondly, the text on the sign is too small to read and remarkably it is not possible to read the fine print text in the sample signage images that CPP provided in their evidence pack either. Therefore, since this signage is impossible to read in both physical and digital forms, which has been supported by the CPP evidence, I once again request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform CPP to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice

Best Regards,
Registered Keeper