Two tickets!

Marko_Hates_PPCs

Hi all, help required desperately for this newbie because I'm not sure quite what the best thing to do is.

After years of no parking tickets from private companies, I get two within a month or so!!!!!

The first is for an actual incident that occurred a month or so earlier: Horizon at a local Iceland gave the driver a windscreen ticket for not displaying. The driver knew the ticket had been displayed but due to a possible gust of wind through the slightly open sunroof, the ticket slid forward to the front gap beside the windscreen. The driver retrieved the ticket with tweezers, and yes it was acquired before the "first seen" entry, and was to expire well beyond the "time of issue" entry. Anyhow, I as keeper ignored so now I have the NTK. I have photocopied the valid ticket and will submit this. Regardless of POPLA outcome, I won't pay unless forced to do so by judge as I believe commercial justification is not warranted here: this is not an overstay where the keeper claims no estimate of loss. This is an unprecedented error.

The second comes from CP Plus for a motorway services incident. Two hours maximum and I remained 2 hours 20 mins because the driver's battery went flat. The driver did not need a recovery agent because another car park user got the car started for the driver and in doing so, left the driver his contact details ifan independent witness was required that the car had been broken down. Contact has been made with him and he is happy to honour his pledge.

I'm confident I won't be paying either unless ordered by a judge. I have to date ignored CP Plus but am now ready to challenge them since their tertiary fee (140£) both exceeds the Notice to Keeper figure from the POFA 2012 and it goes past to 100£ stated in the BPA Code of Practice.

Basically I want a double victory with POPLA and I am in the process of drafting my first levels of appeal which I somehow expect to fail. To do this, I want to throw the whole book at both of these rogues.

Horizon in their wordage do not threaten to bring on a tertiary fee or use debt collectors. As such, I wish to get on with them straight away as they may not impeach themselves as CP Plus have done. Anyhow, here are the things I would like to know as I draft my letters:

1) The first CP Plus invoice (they are ANPR only for this service area) arrived exactly 17 days after the alleged incident. I know the deadline to be 14 days but where is it this stipulated? POFA? BPA COP? Contract protocols?

2) How do I go about challenging the operators to prove they have authorisation to act on behalf of their respective clients? Do I simply include this in each appeal? ("Oh and by the way, while we are on the subject, can I see your certificate to show you are allowed to manage this car park?" or something more formal).

3) None of the three CP Plus letters nor the Horizon letter mention the word "creditor" or anything to that effect. Do I mention this to them? Or do I keep quiet and specify this to POPLA?

4) Is there anything else I can challenge those pigs to comply with on which they may possibly fail?

With regards CP Plus. two hours max stay, but no "no return by" period. Although charges apply after 2 hours, so too does the refreshed two hour free stay period. The way I see it is that if a motorist can leave the car park and return the same second, or simply remove his vehicle from one bay to the next, I don't see how it staying in the same spot "breaches" terms that are inconclusive. Someone stayed two hours free, and 20 minutes into the next batch of two free hours! :rotfl:


Anyhow, I welcome some replies and I am happy to respond to any questions for more clarity.

Marko_Hates_PPCs

PS. In case anyone started reading I will make this post here for a fifth question...

5) Is it correct POPLA do NOT consider mitigating circumstances? I've seen this mentioned in places. I'm not sure how this can be. To give an example, my own breakdown. Surely if one is claiming to be broken down the burden of proof lies with the operator that the keeper's vehicle was 100% operational, specifically since his only guarantee of the "big figure" is overstaying at a free car park where "no return within" periods are set in stone.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

1) The first CP Plus invoice (they are ANPR only for this service area) arrived exactly 17 days after the alleged incident. I know the deadline to be 14 days but where is it this stipulated? POFA? BPA COP? Contract protocols?

Stipulated? Nowhere. They do not *have to* get it to you by day 14.

The NEWBIES thread tells newbies that PPCs don't have to use the POFA, and CP Plus don't. That's why they give up when they see the template appeal from the NEWBIES thread. No need to embellish it, for either of the PPCs, just submit the template and choose 'registered keeper' in any drop-down menu, NOT DRIVER.

Is it correct POPLA do NOT consider mitigating circumstances?

Yes, but you won't be appealing on that basis. Template BPA appeal, CP Plus will very likely give up when they see the forum template, as there is no point them continuing as long as you don't add anything giving away the driver!

Horizon will reject.

Then you beat Horizon anyway, by using the templates in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. You don't need to throw the book at them and the 'creditor' issue means nothing and I wish the person who first thought of it (a regular on pepipoo) had never bothered, because it's such a pointless point!

Marko_Hates_PPCs

Thanks CM. So you recommend abandon the current drafts I have and adopt templates (just changing the specifics).

Looking at the three CP Plus letters right now as I speak, they do specify POFA 2012 in no newer than two places.

BTW. Looking at POPLA's website, "Mitigating Circumstances" does appear as an option. Seems strange that they should have it when they are bound to discard it. But at the same time, how can this be allowed, and what the heck does a PPC want from a keeper when there really are mitigating circumstances? Sorry about all the questions...

KeithP

Marko, you really need to edit your posts to remove any clues as to who the driver is.

For example, the phrase "Horizon at a local Iceland gave the driver a windscreen ticket" should be used.

Similarly, "The driver did not need a recovery agent because another car park user got the car started" is much more appropriate than what you have posted.

The PPCs trawl forums looking for people to trip themselves up.

Marko_Hates_PPCs wrote: »

Thanks CM. So you recommend abandon the current drafts I have and adopt templates (just changing the specifics).

No embellishments needed. Just send the templates as they are.
That'll save you adding stuff saying you are the driver.

Marko_Hates_PPCs

KeithP wrote: »

The PPCs trawl forums looking for people to trip themselves up.

Point taken Keith. I have redacted the original post.

KeithP

Marko_Hates_PPCs wrote: »

Point taken Keith. I have redacted the original post.

One more edit needed just before :rotfl: towards the end.

Marko_Hates_PPCs

Well spotted. Done!

Coupon-mad

Looking at the three CP Plus letters right now as I speak, they do specify POFA 2012 in no newer than two places.

Doesn't matter; don't overthink it. Use the BPA template for both PPCs, you will either get a POPLA code/rejection, or they will cancel (or they might write a begging letter in between, *inviting* the appellant registered keeper to think again and say who was driving - you ignore that one!).

Looking at POPLA's website, "Mitigating Circumstances" does appear as an option. Seems strange that they should have it when they are bound to discard it.

Who do you think *guided* this cheaper phoenix of the POPLA service to write their RUBBISH headings like ''I didn't see the signs'' clearly designed to make consumers write a terrible, losing appeal? Allegedly, their paymasters, the BPA.

There is even a misleading bit of advice from POPLA on the website, that says ''if you appeal using 'OTHER' you are less likely to succeed'' (we always use OTHER, and almost always win). Guess when that appeared there? Yep, BEFORE the service had ever heard a single case. Yes indeed.

But at the same time, how can this be allowed,

Money talks.

what the heck does a PPC want from a keeper when there really are mitigating circumstances?

Money!

Marko_Hates_PPCs

Interesting.

But then analyse this:
"I didn't see the signs"

There could be two reasons that the motorist did not see the signs, and all would depend on whether the parking company met the standards required. If it did not do so as, let's say as I know in several places, a public retail facility does not have entrance signs informing the motorist of private land, then this could ultimately spell that no contract was formed. If so, this is not mitigating circumstances. It means that the charge is wrongfully issued.

But then if it did meet the standards but the motorist claimed he never saw the signs, it would not be difficult for the claimant to submit photos of all their signs, so this would be a mess-up by the motorist. That's not mitigating circumstances either.

Mitigating circumstances is where a certain level of personal misfortune affecting a driver lessens the gravity of the affront (e.g. car that won't start is not the same as driver who overstays free car park and claims no estimate of loss). I'm puzzled as to how they could be allowed to continue operating.I mean the burden of proof here lies clearly with the parking company since they are making the assertion that the motorist "breached" the terms and conditions. Of course, when the motorist such as in my case is genuine, then proving the malfunction is not difficult. Even failing at POPLA, what judge will in his right mind rule in favour of the PPC?

Lamilad

But then if it did meet the standards but the motorist claimed he never saw the signs, it would not be difficult for the claimant to submit photos of all their signs, so this would be a mess-up by the motorist.

Not necessarily the t&C's on the signs would have to be brief, clear and prominently proclaimed so as to create no doubt in the drivers mind that they are entering into a contract. This is a legal point, however, not mitigation.

the burden of proof here lies clearly with the parking company since they are making the assertion that the motorist "breached" the terms and conditions.!

It is not, necessarily, disputed that the t&C's were breached. What you are saying is that 'frustration of contract' has occurred which, again, is a legal point, not mitigation.

This happens when the defendant has acted in good faith and made 'all reasonable endeavours' to comply with the contract but was unable to do so due to circumstances beyond their control - chance occurrence, force majeure etc.

Even failing at POPLA, what judge will in his right mind rule in favour of the PPC?

Depends who argues their case best. In court the law is king so if one party can show their case has a stronger basis in law then they will probably win. But parking cases are highly contentious and usually boil to one word against another so the judge may rule on the 'balance of probabilities' who is most likely to be telling the truth.