PCN appeal in Permit Area

yorkshirebloke

Evening everyone, I had another thread on this but chose to have it removed and start again. Boil the kettle!!:rotfl:

Long and short of it - I am the keeper of a vehicle, a valid permit is in place for the vehicle at a private car park. I have been made aware of a situation recently, where the driver did display the permit, but the permit unknowingly fell into the footwell upon exiting the vehicle. It was still visible through the window as it landed "face up" - we have photographic evidence.

PCN issued by PPC presumably acting on behalf of the landowner (although we have no evidence of this yet!). PCN states reason for issue, quote "parked without a valid parking ticket/permit" note omission of the terms 'clearly displaying' or 'displaying'!

Appealed in good faith to PPC with photo of valid permit, that was rejected immediately, so it's looking like POPLA - but I appealed to the PPC very early; so I will have to appeal to POPLA within 28 days of rejection, which will be before the PPC has had a chance to issue a NTK - although if I leave it as late as possible, the NTK may be issued whilst the POPLA appeal is in process - or if I mention to POPLA that a NTK hasn't yet been issued, do they 'hang on' for the PPC to do this? Will they take further evidence during the appeal process if it comes to light (in terms of a bodged NTK)? Clarification needed please.

Anyway, the permit. The permit was purchased from the landowner (a university) via their online system. The only t&c's the permit holder/applicant had to agree to upon purchase were that they tick a box to accept the university's parking policy. Contained within the parking policy there is no mention of amount in £ of any 'charges' they may try apply to the permit holder in case of a violation of the t&c's of the policy - so I consider this section of contract void due to uncertainty. There is no stipulation of how or where in/on the vehicle the permit should be displayed or that it should be displayed continuously for the duration of the parking event. There is no mention that any third party PPC is authorised to issue PCN on the landowner's behalf -the wording just says that the landowner reserves the right to use a PCN. There is no mention that the permit holder must obey the signage in the car parks - in fact there is no mention of signage at all.

I am taking the fact the permit holder ticked the box, when applying for the permit, as the 'contract' with regards to the permit holder parking on the land.

The PCN was issued by a third party PPC - not the landowner.
Am I correct in saying just because this company has displayed signage in the area, it doesn't automatically mean that a new/additional contract has been entered into between the permit holder/driver and the PPC? Does the original contract (online application) supersede any newer contracts, unless the newer contract ('agreed to' by the act of parking in area that has displayed signage) explicitly voids the original one (which it doesn't in this case)?

Before I copy in my draft POPLA appeal, I'd like to know I am taking the correct approach by denying a contract exists between the permit holder and the PPC.

However to cement my POPLA appeal, I am considering firing on all cylinders - packing out the appeal not just with 'incorrect claimant' argument, but the following relevant arguments too:

>> full comprehensive details on how the signage does not meet the BPA CoP; including referring to PPC's own photographic evidence which I have downloaded, which does not show the vehicle parked within eyeshot of any signage. Signage does not mention 'contract' at all in any wording.
>> that the wording on the PCN is void as it does not the specify reason for issue as 'not clearly displaying' permit - just 'parked WITHOUT valid permit' - this is wrong because the vehicle is parked WITH a valid permit (and the landowner knows this)
>> no evidence of landowner authority - onus is on operator to produce contract between them and landowner
>> operator has at this time failed to prove liability onto an individual. They do not know who the driver was and I refuse to reveal who it was. NTK not yet received. Hoping when it is, they mess it up by not including everything they need to under POFA2012 - so watch this space
>> charge sought is not a valid, genuine pre-estimate of loss - because the permit was already paid for. Even in the case of the vehicle being parked without 'displaying' a valid permit (which I deny), the fact remains that a valid permit is in place for the vehicle, and no financial or other loss has occurred to either the landowner or PPC. Therefore the charge sought is invalid.
>> if signage is supposed to be a contract (despite not saying so), then it is covered as a 'distance contract' : The signage at this location fails to create any contractual liability due to the failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The purported contract created by the signage is a ‘distance contract’ as defined in section 5 of the Regulations, and is therefore subject to the mandatory requirements set out in section 13, relating to the statutory information which must be provided by the trader. >> I then go on to detail which specific aspects of the CCICaAC regs 2013 the trader has failed to meet.

What are your thoughts on my case guys? Have I missed anything or more importantly is there anything I need to omit?

I have lots of evidence regarding the signage, which I can elaborate on further if required. I'm also in the process of drafting a bullet-pointed POPLA appeal which might make easier reading than my waffle above.

Thanks in advance!

Umkomaas

Is this different to your other case? Why remove that and all the considered advice that was given - people do take time to provide that, including in your original thread, inputs from practising Solicitors. All that seems to have been despatched to the ‘Delete Thread’ bin. Now we seem to be faced with another long list of questions. Not a great encouragement for those who have already given advice.

This is easy and can be beaten at POPLA without all the hypotheses. You’ve appealed (too) early, so may (or may not) miss out on the possibility of no Keeper liability - likely your POPLA deadline might expire before the 56 day deadline for the issue of a compliant NtK. But there are other very well documented appeal points that you can put into your POPLA draft, once you’ve received your rejection from the PPC.

It just needs to be dealt with as thousands before have without complicating matters with questions that will probably never arise.

You’ve not stated here who the PPC is (can’t remember from your original thread) - but that would give us a chance of giving you an idea at how good they are at dealing with simple POPLA appeals and whether or not they are litigious.

Here’s one issue that can be ‘ditched’. Beavis put paid to this - look it up.

>> charge sought is not a valid, genuine pre-estimate of loss

Redx

frankly, I think the fact that all the other advice has now been deleted means that people here wont bother in helping you once more, I certainly wont and am appalled that all the advice by LOC123 has gone into the bin

yours digustedly

Redx

KeithP

I'll leave it to others.

yorkshirebloke

Redx, I actually requested to have the thread removed because you personally had quoted a few sentences of one of my posts - yes it's my fault for potentially leaving myself wide open on a public forum - but I would have thought someone of your experience on the forum could refrain from quoting chapter/verse in case the post needed to be edited. I did try to message you to edit your own post but you've set your privacy settings to "castle and moat" level meaning I couldn't even drop you a message!!

None of the excellent advice given by the several forum members has gone in the bin. I kept copies of their posts before 'binning' the thread, FYI, so although their posts are no longer viewable to the public they are to me. And as I had edited all my posts before I realised I couldn't even ask you to amend yours, any other forum member reading their replies wouldn't have been able to make much sense of half of it without seeing my posts that they'd replied to.

Umkomaas - I've looked up the Beavis case - but several points are made to contend that one, and on one point another case is quoted as going against Beavis. I can copy and paste what I have if it helps the discussion. Apologies if I offended anyone. As stated I only removed the original thread so as not to drop myself in it and I will be careful in future of what I type. As a newbie I didn't realise that if someone quoted me in their own post, and I deleted the original, that the quotation remains - but I thought even if that was the case I'd simply ask the person who quoted me to remove their post - but again you made this impossible Redx.

Redx

no I didnt, all you had to do was post in the thread and ask me to edit any of my posts

alternatively, you could have pm,d soolin or another board guide like crabman and asked them to edit my posts or asked them to PM me to edit my posts on their behalf (it is one of the main reasons that forums have board guides)

alternatively , you can REPORT the post using the report button and ask the admins to edit the posts or to PM me to ask me to edit the posts on their behalf

people like me keep my pm box private to stop unwanted communications from members wanting private advice. You will find that almost ALL the forum regulars do this trick , including coupon-mad , umkomaas and many others

the forum has existing mechanisms and staff in place to do as you wanted

getting back to this thread, you can ask the admin staff to transfer the relevant posts from the other thread into this one, or you could copy and paste the info into this one so people can see what has gone on before

so dont make this about me , when in fact it is YOU that has failed to allow for all the old info being put in here and it is YOU that hasnt followed forum guidelines for getting unwanted information out of any replies in previous threads

there was no need to remove the old thread, just a need to follow the forum etiquette and guidelines on removing unwanted information , by the admin staff and board guides either doing it for themselves or asking them to PM me on your behalf !!

yorkshirebloke

I didn't post in the thread for the very same reason I wanted the post taken down - I did not want any 'external' entities seeing what I had written in the meantime. I did not want to highlight the thread and 'bump it' to the top.


I am new to this forum and therefore did not know of the existing mechanisms. I don't know who the existing board 'guides' are. I couldn't find anywhere to delete the thread myself so defaulted to emailing the address at the top of the page. Funnily enough they actioned my request - are you saying they shouldn't have done? Should the people who run the forum obey your etiquette instead?

If anyone else has any constructive input for my case please let me know, and again, all constructive input is really appreciated.

Umkomaas

Umkomaas - I've looked up the Beavis case - but several points are made to contend that one, and on one point another case is quoted as going against Beavis. I can copy and paste what I have if it helps the discussion.

You can accept my advice if you want it - as it comes. If your research shows different, go with that if you think it’s better. I don’t need to see any more of the Beavis case; I’ve lived and breathed it daily for the past 2 years!

Sorry, but I don’t come here for ‘discussion’, there are too many people to help who go with our advice, without nugatory debate over lengthy hypotheses, and the vast majority come out the other side as winners.

You may not realise, but there are fewer regulars who contribute here than you have fingers. We deal with at least 75 threads each and every day - 24/7/365, some which are genuinely complicated.

yorkshirebloke

I simply don't have the energy to continue involving myself in needless tit-for-tat discussion about frivolous and irrelevant matters - which is a shame as the information provided here is valuable. But thanks anyway for the advice!

Redx

your personal attack on me above is disgusting and against forum etiquette

my point all along was that you have deprived all the other members here of a valuable resource, which was what a solicitor said in response to your quandary

it was a rare insight into something useful that we could ALL learn from and the fact that YOU have saved that information for yourself is selfish because nobody else here , now or in the future, can learn from it

at no time have I made a personal attack on you , just pointed out the facts as I see them, so the fact that YOU think its ok to diss other members in public is disgraceful , because you dont know me and you dont know my background or my issues , so you have made a judgment without any facts to support your hypothesis

my complaint is the fact that the valuable information posted by others in that thread is now lost , its the same as when the information in the NEWBIES FAQ thread goes missing like it did recently due to maliciousness by one member here

the fact that YOU havent learned to use a forum properly is not MY problem

my disgust is at allowing all the LOC123 posts to be deleted, you had no right to do that, only to have your own posts deleted and any quotes reproduced in other replies which quote your own words

I dont think LOC123 would be happy to know that all her posts are deleted on this matter , but you didnt bother to get her permission

and you did not use the forum resources to get my posts edited either

Loadsofchildren123

There was some information on the original thread started by the OP which, if found by the PPC, would actively have worked against him. We therefore had an off forum discussion about some issues he had raised yesterday. I can't really say what they were because then that highlights the issue.


The OP thought he was doing the right thing to delete the whole thread and start again.


The OP wants advice on what to run at POPLA. I have advised him what to run in proceedings, but the two can be very different because arguments that win at POPLA will not win in court, and I never focus on POPLA appeals.


For the benefit of anyone coming to this thread, I advised yesterday:


1. there is a pre-existing contract between driver and landowner (uni). It has all the elements of a contract - offer, acceptance, consideration. Those are the terms which govern his/her right to park.


2. the contract at 1. didn't mention any PPC or further t&cs. But it did mention the right to issue a pcn if the permit was not displayed.


3. I don't know what quality the permit was - eg if it was a small flimsy bit of paper prone to flipping over/falling off the dash.


3. I say the contractual arguments are very similar to those I ran in this one: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5638268. Although that was a staff car park, the principles are the same. Not all of the facts will apply though (the timeline is very specific as to when each set of t&cs was given to the driver and when the original contract was entered into).


4. So the contract was entered into at the time driver applied for the permit. The only terms are those on the website that (s)he signed up to. The PPC cannot come along and later add t&cs by way of signage. The driver was already entitled to park there according to the contract with the uni. The PPC cannot offer him further or new terms in respect of rights he already has.


5. These contractual arguments will not apply if, for instance, the driver on the day was NOT the permit-holder. Because the contract is between permit holder and the uni. Anyone else driving the car would be subject to the advertised t&cs on site (ie the PPCs) - you then have all the general arguments about adequate signage, whether the wording is capable of offering a contract etc.


6. I don't know if POFA has been complied with, in order to make the OP liable as keeper.


7. The uni t&cs say that they can issue a pcn, but don't define what the charge could be, so I think this clause must be void for uncertainty, or the court could impute a term to give it efficacy. If it did the latter, I think the court would say any charge had to be reasonable, given that the university's aim is not to make a commercial profit (unlike in Beavis). Even if the uni is entitled to issue a pcn, that right is the university's, not the PPC's, and so the PPC must have been acting as the university's agent, not in its own right, so I say it has no locus standi to bring proceedings in its own name.


Hope this helps.