Elite Management Midlands Ltd Appeal

Umkomaas

ParkingBad wrote: »

So after reading through a few threads and a bit of digging online, I have come to realise that EMM are now members of the IPC, since 14/08/17. Is this why they havent generated my POPLA code?

PCN contravention date is 25/08/17. They are still down as members of BPA and I've already appealed to them using the BPA template and the response i got from them has been copied into post #1

ParkingBad wrote: »

EMM passed on my details to their debt agency ZZPS. The charged was bumped up to £172.
No rejection to my appeal and no POPLA code.

As the PCN i received had BPA basically written all over it i sent off a complaint about the events that have unfolded so far. Received a response stating EMM are no longer members of the BPA.

I then contacted EMM explaining what BPA said and they responded saying they are BPA members?? They have now even provided me a POPLA code lol.

EMM also mentioned that the letter i received from the debt agency ZZPS was in error!
The charge has now gone back to £100. Surely this is a misuse of my personal data?

And there’s more confusion here, as EMM are definitely IPC members since 14/08/17 and given your (or is it your friend’s ?) parking event date of 25/08/17, they shouldn’t have the capacity to issue a POPLA code. Have you checked its authenticity and currency, because they might just have fobbed you off with any old 10-digit number.

You can check it here:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla-code-checker/

ParkingBad

Thanks for your response,

(The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge)

I have not added that point to my POPLA i was just explaining that it would be pointless me adding anything about that or keeper liability as they have mentioned POFA in the PCN

"you are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012 that the driver is required to pay this PCN in full. If you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.

you are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given, the pcn has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of protection of freedoms act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that act"

Also, just to keep it simple, (guess i should have done this from the start) i will be posting about this PCN as though it is my PCN which is why i mention my details being passed over to ZZPS rather than the person whom has actually received the PCN. Sorry for the confusion.

I have checked the POPLA code checker and it is all legit.

Umkomaas

I think you might be making too many assumptions just because they have ‘mentioned PoFA in the PCN’. Have you checked it line by line against the Act (via the links I gave you).

PPCs have recently started to sharpen up their act in the context of PoFA 2012 (it’s taken them 5 years to do so, that’s the calibre we're dealing with!) but there are still some ‘holes’ in many NtKs and you need to find any that do exist and exploit them.

PoFA is a very strong card to play when the identity of the driver isn’t known, otherwise the keeper leaves him/herself wide open.

ParkingBad

pic removed

Umkomaas

But that’s only half the NtK, from what I can see by standing on my head to read it! It’s not really thoughtful to expect those giving freely of their time to have to go through contortions to try to help you.

Does the NtK show the ‘Period of Parking’, from/to?

Does it state the amount of the parking charge that remains outstanding? Using the words of PoFA, not just showing a £100 figure?

Does it name ‘the creditor’?

What was the date of issue of the NtK?

What was the date of receipt?

These are all points (some of them critical) that the NtK should be examined against.

ParkingBad

pic removed

Umkomaas

What you need to build into your appeal is that as there was no permission to park there (Issue Reason: THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY) then there can be no possible parking contract. Without permission to park, then it is a case of trespass which only the landowner can pursue for nominal damages. As the PPC is not the landowner, they cannot pursue for trespass.

As there is no parking contract, there can be no contractual charge, and therefore what EMM is trying on is an unadulterated PENALTY. Their case is most certainly not saved by PE v Beavis.

Work that into your POPLA draft. Do you have your own photos of the signage to support the fact that they were ‘Prohibiting’ in nature, therefore no parking contract? You cannot agree to be contractually bound by something that is prohibited.

ParkingBad

Driver has no pictures. I have checked google street view but the area is not clear as it becomes a parking area so unable to go in any further to get a better look. If i have a chance during the week i will pop down but just want to have the POPLA ready to send off. So based on what you have said i am thinking of adding the following:

Amount demanded is a penalty as there is no parking contract

Amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive. The authority on this is ParkingEye v Beavis. That case was characterised by clear and ample signage where the motorist had time to read, consider the signage and decide whether to accept or not. In this case the signage was neither clear nor ample, and the motorist had no time to read the signage, let alone consider it, as the charge was applied instantly the vehicle stopped. The signage cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice (the BPA Code) provides guidance on signage. From Section 18.1: “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass.

As there was no permission to park there (Issue Reason: THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY) then there can be no possible parking contract. Without permission to park, then it is a case of trespass which only the landowner can pursue for nominal damages. As the PPC is not the landowner, they cannot pursue for trespass and therefore what EMM is trying on is an unadulterated PENALTY. Their case is most certainly not saved by PE v Beavis.

The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal charges.

ParkingBad

hi guys, i have sent off my popla appeal, i'm now waiting on the operator to provide evidence. Just wondering if they have a deadline?

Coupon-mad

21 days (ish) from when they see your appeal.