POPLA appeal- non winnable? Pls help

Umkomaas

Signage is all important and is the purported contract between the motorist and the PPC. It's for breach of that contract that most PCN/NtKs are issued.

If the PPC signage was to indicate clearly that gym members had to enter VRM details on an iPad to receive whatever the PPC was offering, then that forms part of the contract. Should the signage be silent on the need for VRM input, then I'd argue that there was no breach, or at least a case of 'contra proferentem' existed.

The gym putting up signs inside the gym has no relevance in my view to the contract between the motorist and the PPC.

mystique81

NeilCr wrote: »

For clarity

Are you confirming that the gym have no power to cancel this ticket?

And, to help me and some of my fellow gym members. We are in the same situation as I said above. Our gym has been very clear about the rules about parking - we can use the (non gym) car park but we have to use the permit issued by them. We are told this when we join and there are notices reminding us of this. And when we need to renew our permit (every three months).

Does the lack of signage overrule this clear information?

The gym refuses to deal with the NCP or their members behalf.

NeilCr

mystique81 wrote: »

The gym refuses to deal with the NCP or their members behalf.

But, I don't think they have a contract with NCP so they may well be limited in their powers; which was why I was trying to clarify re earlier posts about what the gym can actually legally (or not) do.

Hopefully, someone will come along and clear this up.

Have you spoken to the gym manager face to face?

mystique81

mystique81 wrote: »

Can it be worded like this? Or shall omit the bit about me being a regular in this gym?



I am a regular member xxx gym. I use the xxx car park to park my vehicle whilst I attend the gym. NCP are attempting to penalise me for something that has no contractual basis - upon entry and around the car park there are no signs displayed that require entering the vehicless registration mark into the iPpad located in the gym to qualify for the 90 minutes free of charge parking.


I reserve the right to use the Contra Proferentem which is covered by Section 69 of The Consumer Rights Act 2018:


"The contra proferentem rule is a rule in contract law which states that any clause considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that requested that the clause is included"

In this case, following the contra proferentem rule, the NCP requested the VRM to be entered into the iPad however this request is not displayed on any of its car park signs. As the parking contract is purely based on the signage then this contract does not place any requirement on the gym members to enter the VRM and therefore cancels the NCP's request to do so. The vehicle therefore should be entitled for a free 90 minutes parking period whether it has or has not been registered with the NPC via iPad in the gym.

Umkomaas - is my wording okay like this? I have literally 3 days left before I must submit this appeal. I am starting to be worried now that I will run out of time. Thank you

Redx

NCP not NPC , so always proof read and check for errors

trilliano

Evening All,

I am after some advice my 75 year Old Father parked in the above car park.
05/07/2018
my Father was issued a fine issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd, Liverpool.
The Verification code is 1412128595.
The Parking Meter was out of order, there were several other shoppers kinda dunfounded of what to do, there were no other metres around. there was a sign saying you can download our APP and pay on your phone, well my father 75 years old, has a job to make a phone call on a mobile device, anyhow he had no way of paying as he never had a phone & the Pay Machine was broken.
BUT HE HAS HAD A £60 fine rising to £100 also he has had his appeal turned down saying OUR ‘PHONE & PAY’ service should be used.
Does Civil Enforcement Ltd own The phone & pay service or is this a third party contract with Civil Enforcement Ltd and has the land owner agreed in writing and have a law abiding contract with the land owner and Phone & Pay System.
All your thoughts, help, views would be really appreciated Thanks Trilliano

KeithP

trilliano wrote: »

I am after some advice my 75 year Old Father...

Trilliano, the best advice for you at this time is to delete your post.

Mainly because it contains a verification code. Do you really want some other mischievous person appealing on your father's behalf?

Having done that please start a new thread if you still want help.
Trying to progress two people's issues in the one thread can only lead to confusion.

mystique81

Hi Umkomaas


I had the POPLA decision today which says:


An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxx.

NCP have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team


I want to sincerely thank you for your advice . without you and some others here I would have definitely lost! You are brilliant! Thanks again :-)

Umkomaas

Nice result. Made my evening.

Sorry I missed some of the Qs posed by NeilCr. It's really only a Judge who can give absolute judgment on a contractual issue if parties are in disagreement. We can point to where the potential loopholes are (or omissions as in this case) for motorists to utilise. It's rather telling that NCP felt insufficiently secure to contest this at POPLA. But happy to chance their arm in scamming £100 out of the OP!

In regard to membership cancellation - if your loyalty to the gym is only important one-way, then do you just simply suck it up that they are point blank refusing to help, or do you do something that makes them think hard about how they treat their loyal customers. Cancellation is of course the Armageddon option, but threats of it might be enough. (Notwithstanding what arrangement there are between them and the PPC, not that they appear to have tried to explain it to the OP. But we hear so many mealy-mouthed lies from retailers and the like, trying to distance themselves from the dispute, leaving their customer cast adrift, that it's hard to know what the reality is).

If my (well, Mrs U's) supermarket refused to help with a ticket, costing us £100, for sure that would be our final visit. But we won't get caught out!

Fruitcake

Well done.

Now complain to your MP about his unregulated scam.