Harlesden Plaza

j05hr

I got a parking charge as the registered keeper from Harlesden Plaza from LCP, the driver got a ticket but left after the time expired. I sent the standard letter in the Newbie thread and it got rejected so now I have the Popla appeal. I've tried to look at previous threads but I can only find cases of people gettin a charge for not getting a ticket. Does anyone have any experience of appealing for overstaying? On the letter, it doesn't state how long the driver paid for parking? Is this relevant?

Thanks in advanced

The_Deep

How long was the overstay?

j05hr

That's what I would like to know from them, it was nothing more than 20 minutes over

Coupon-mad

now I have the Popla appeal. I've tried to look at previous threads but I can only find cases of people gettin a charge for not getting a ticket.

And when you read those Harlesden Plaza appeals, you surely noticed what made them WIN at POPLA?

Nothing to do with not getting a ticket. They won on signage...

So why are you thinking your case at HP is different, when it is not?

j05hr

What makes me think that is because they are claiming to not see the signage . For example

4 UNCLEAR AND UNLIT SIGNAGE - NO CONTRACT MADE WITH THE DRIVER
The driver did not see any signs at all when entering this car park on a dark evening and therefore at that time had no idea about any restriction or terms. There was no reason to suspect it was not a free shoppers car park and I do not believe the car park was well-lit at all, despite LCP showing me old 2011 pictures of some lights on a pole (lights that were clearly not working in their 'evidence picture' despite it appearing to be dusk!). If they wish to communicate a pay and display regime, LCP need clear illuminated signs with the full terms and the means to make payment with a machine at the entrance (including the risk of a PCN prominently displayed in large font so this cannot be missed before parking).

I am aware that the driver went to the Burger King drive-thru that is part of the car park. At that time of night it turned out to be closed and so after checking there was no-one serving at the Burger King service hatch, the driver left. However this does add a point to my appeal. Where a car park includes a drive-thru, as the name suggests, this is not part of the car park at all. Driving through to fetch food (even if the driver finds out the shop has closed and they are too late) is not parking in the car park and the signage relating to any parking rules cannot relate to that part of the site nor any time spent there reading the menu from the driver's seat and approaching the service hatch by car. So I contend that for much of the time (which was only a matter of minutes altogether) the driver was outwith the 'car park' area covered by the unlit signs anyway and any remaining minutes are explained simply because the camera takes a misleading picture at the entrance and exit and shows no actual parking time. That plus the fact the signs were not readable at night means that there was no contract formed for parking, no consideration flowed between the parties and the terms on the signs were not capable of being read. Nor did a parking breach even occur as there can be no 'underpayment' for merely reading a menu then attempting to use the drive-thru at the other end of the car park, then finally making a decision to leave once it was clear the opening hours of the Burger King had ended.

LCP have sent me a printout of the alleged 'full car park terms and conditions' which their website says are 'available upon request' but there is no evidence that these full t&cs are on display on site for the driver to have seen and read.

There are no low-positioned, clear, illuminated signs on entry to this car park which would have communicated any terms of parking to a driver in the dark. So the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. LCP failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as was found in a comparable camera-reliant car park in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011.

In Mendelssohn v Normand Ltd [1970] 1 QB177 Lord Denning MR at 182 dealt with the question whether a term on a notice board at a car park might have been incorporated into a contract where it was not obvious as the driver came in:
“He may have seen the notice, but he had never read it. Such a notice is not imported into the contract unless it is brought home to the party so prominently that he must be taken to have known of it and agreed with it.”
LCP have quoted the Beavis case in their letter. However this is going to the Court of Appeal now and was a decision in small claims only, full of caveats and no case law whatsoever since there is nothing that supports a penalty in a consumer contract. This would be a breach of the UTCCRs.

But in this case, it was seen as the car park was paid for. I can reword that if needed but just wanted advice to make my case as strong as possible.

Coupon-mad

OK, isn't that the place with a drive through? If the driver used that, then that isn't parking time, it's driving.

And the signs there are terrible; I seem to recall the photos on another thread.

Did you blab about who the driver was, in the first appeal?

Have you seen the template POPLA appeal points in the 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread, use them and show us a draft.

Fruitcake

Stop trying to do the parking scammers job for them.

You say at PoPLA that the signs are inadequate using the long appeal point from post 3 of the NEWBIES.
Attach your own pics if you have them.

Whist a driver may have seen them, it does not mean they are capable of creating a contract and therefore they have failed to convey the required information.

Use all the other template points from post 3 of the NEWBIES such as Not the Landowner, No standing to issue charges, Grace Periods (there are two totalling twenty minutes, and anything else relevant.

Please also complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

j05hr

Thanks for all the replies, I will draft up a template for POPLA.

It is the one with the Drive Thru but that isn't what was used and I didn't mention who the driver was.

Also in the original appeal, I put from the template

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

And they sent the rejection via email and nothing by post. Is there something I can write about that?

KeithP

j05hr wrote: »

And they sent the rejection via email and nothing by post. Is there something I can write about that?

Nothing that will make any difference.

Coupon-mad

OK fed up with being asked that, and when others ask ''can I remove the bit about signs'' (NO) so I've changed the template:

Re PCN number: xxxxx

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn.

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require all photos taken, a clear image of the signage and an explanation of the allegation (e.g. if you have identified a wrong VRN input at a machine, say so, and explain why your Data Protection Officer has not simply rectified it, rather than trying to punish a driver for a matter where there is nothing to deter).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP, appraising all parties of the debate where Parliament agreed: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''. Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and that 'we make it up most of the time' (BBC Watchdog).

Formal note:
Should you later pursue this charge by way of litigation, note that service of any legal documents by email is expressly disallowed and you are not entitled to assume that the data in this dispute/appeal remains the current address for service.

Yours faithfully,