Aldi, Careparking/Anchor ticket, Preston

Umkomaas

POPLA win kills it off. Dead, period, finito, end of ....... A fairly simple copy and paste from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 should accomplish this, all done and dusted in a short space of time.

I disagree with CM, court is the way to go, every time.

The OP has no control as to whether this goes to court, the PPC will decide that.

Care Parking are not litigious at present, but they have 6 years in which to change. Not killing this off now opens the OP to months of debt collector pressure, and then the balance of 6 years never knowing what might drop through the letterbox, every day.

And if Care Parking do change their behaviour and sign up with the likes of BWL roboclaims service, the OP is facing months of dealing with legal correspondence and all the guff with then being forced to defend (or face a judgment in default).

Then there's always the assumption that the OP is up to all this disruption to their life, and then to actually defend themselves in court, with no guarantee of outcome.

POPLA seems a much more viable proposition.

ABowman

All, thanks for your help - this is our 'appeal' to Anchor/Care parking, this is a lease car and so I want to check that this is ok for that reason. We have notified the lease car company not to pay previously.

FAO Appeals Department
Anchor Security Services Ltd.
Seasons House
Lakeside Business Village
St David’s Park
Ewloe
CH5 3YE

Dear Sir/Madam,

Ticket number: xx
Vehicle registration number: xx

You issued a parking ticket on xxxxxx but I believe it to be unfairly issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. Your demand for payment will not be met for the following reasons.

1. No contravention is stated or demonstrated on the ticket or corresponding photos. It is not clear why a ticket was issued as the vehicle was parked appropriately as clearly demonstrated by your own photos. No signage at the entrance or exit from the park demonstrates any contravention.
2. The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. There has been no loss demonstrated as this is a free car park.
3. The driver shopped at several stores and a receipt for this is included which is timed and date stamped for the shop at ALDI as evidence.
4. The planning permission (1999, previously the Loxhams Garage) for the site states several conditions that allows customers to park and shop at this site.

You have already stated that all images relating to the charge are online, having viewed these, these demonstrate that the vehicle was parked correctly. No parking restrictions have therefore been demonstrated to have been broken.

If you choose to pursue this please be aware that no correspondence will be entered into and this will be the only letter you will receive until you answer the specific points raised in this letter.

Yours faithfully,

twhitehousescat

ABowman wrote: »

All, thanks for your help - this is our 'appeal' to Anchor/Care parking, this is a lease car and so I want to check that this is ok for that reason. We have notified the lease car company not to pay previously.

FAO Appeals Department
Anchor Security Services Ltd.
Seasons House
Lakeside Business Village
St David’s Park
Ewloe
CH5 3YE

Dear Sir/Madam,

Ticket number: xx
Vehicle registration number: xx

You issued a parking ticket on xxxxxx but I believe it to be unfairly issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. Your demand for payment will not be met for the following reasons.

1. No contravention is stated or demonstrated on the ticket or corresponding photos. It is not clear why a ticket was issued as the vehicle was parked appropriately as clearly demonstrated by your own photos. No signage at the entrance or exit from the park demonstrates any contravention.
2. The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable. There has been no loss demonstrated as this is a free car park.
3. The driver shopped at several stores and a receipt for this is included which is timed and date stamped for the shop at ALDI as evidence.
4. The planning permission (1999, previously the Loxhams Garage) for the site states several conditions that allows customers to park and shop at this site. and OFFSITE

You have already stated that all images relating to the charge are online, having viewed these, these demonstrate that the vehicle was parked correctly. No parking restrictions have therefore been demonstrated to have been broken.

If you choose to pursue this please be aware that no correspondence will be entered into and this will be the only letter you will receive until you answer the specific points raised in this letter.

Yours faithfully,

additions added , please reword to suit

ABowman

Twhitehousecat - thanks so much. Will revise based on your feedback. We still are unsure over the keeper bit, it is a company car so I don't think we are the keeper, it is a car just for our use so I think the bit about keeper needs to be removed? Thanks again.

KeithP

POFA2012 Schedule 4 Para 2 defines keeper:

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;

Obviously the 'contrary' can be 'proved' if needed.

ABowman

Hi all, we are getting to the final stages. For reference we will take this to court if required. Could you look at Anchors appeal rejection and our submission to Popla to check it's ok?


Anchor:


Your appeal against the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on xxxxx at Corporation Street for the alleged contravention of Abused Patron Parking has been considered by our appeals team, having reviewed the evidence and the details supplied by yourself your appeal has been rejected. Your appeal has been rejected for the following reasons:

- On xxxx this vehicle, Registration xxxxx, was parked at Corporation Street and the driver was observed leaving the site.

- When parking at Corporation Street the driver of this vehicle agreed to pay a Parking Charge of £100 if they did not park in accordance with the terms printed on the contractual warning signs.

- The contractual warning signs in place state: Customer Only car park. You must remain on

site at all times your vehicle remains in the car park. The driver of this vehicle parked in

contravention of this term of the contractual warning signs.

- The operative on duty observed the vehicle parking in the location and then witnessed the

driver leaving the site.

- This car park is only free to members of the public who are patrons of the stores on site for

the duration they remain on site. At the time the vehicle was issued with a charge the driver

was not present on site so therefore not a patron of the on-site stores.

- You are correct that you do not need to name the driver. Regardless of the aforementioned

facts, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, covers the requirements of the liability of the

charge with regard to the registered keeper.

- There are in excess of 22 contractual warning signs and an entrance sign stating the terms

and conditions for parking at this location, these are displayed at regular intervals around

the car park.

- As can be seen in the operatives images linked below, your vehicle is parked in front of a

contractual warning sign outlining the parking restrictions in place at this location.

- Therefore, if you have failed to read or chosen to ignore the signage in place, this is not due

to it not being clear or visible.

- If you wish to view the Contractual Warning Signs in place at this location, you will need to

re visit the car park as they are at different intervals of the car park.!

- Our charges are a contractually agreed sum as shown on the Contractual Warning Signs in

place and comply with the recommendations made in Clause 19 of the British Parking

Association AOS Code of Practice.

- The actual pre-estimate of loss is considered commercial in confidence and will only be

supplied during court proceedings. As no breakdown of this charge has been provided by us

to you, your claim regarding the charge is baseless. Our signage clearly states the parking

requirements and the costs of none compliance.

- The operative on duty has witnessed the driver of the vehicle exit the vehicle and leave the

car park.

- Care Parking’s Operative has witnessed the driver of the vehicle park on site, exit their

vehicle and walk towards the Town Centre, therefore the vehicle was parked on site and the

driver was not present. When you parked the vehicle on site, you have accepted the Terms

and Conditions as stated on the contractual warning signage in place, therefore by you not

remaining on site with your vehicle, you parked in contravention of those Terms and

Conditions.

- The operative’s time and date stamped images linked below, show your vehicle parked on

the edge of the car park, therefore the operative would clearly see if you had gone towards

the on-site stores or off site, as they observed.

- Customers of the on-site stores, are allowed to use the car park for up to 2 hours, however

as you left site, you were not a customer at that time, therefore your vehicle should not

have been parked in the ‘Customer Only’ car park.

- There is a Pay and Display car park on the opposite side of the road for patrons of the Town

Centre, the free Customer Only car park should not be used as an alternative from this.

- Although you have provided a receipt, from 39 minutes after the PCN was issued, this does

not negate you from the parking restrictions in place, nor does it discredit our operative’s

observation.


Popla appeal response:


A parking ticket was issued to car registration xxxxxx on xxxxx but I believe it was unfairly issued. I have appealed to the parking company and they have rejected my appeal on the grounds of ‘alleged contravention of Abused Patron Parking’.


• The alleged contravention did not occur and no evidence has been provided by the company to demonstrate that it did. The photographs provided as evidence by the company (Appendix 1) show no alleged contravention and demonstrate the vehicle parked correctly.


• The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver.!


• The driver did not leave the site and no evidence has been provided as to who the driver was or that they did leave site. No information has been provided as to what constitutes the ‘site’. There is nothing present in the car park to demonstrate what the ‘site’ is.


• The appeal rejection from the operator states that the vehicle was parked on the edge of the site and that the driver would have been seen visiting the stores, yet a receipt has been provided evidencing multiple purchases well within the 2 hour time limit provided by the driver.


• The car park in question has no clear signage as evidenced in photo 4 Appendix 1. I have provided a close up version taken of the same sign in front of the car in photo 4 from close proximity, taken at a later date and obtained by walking through the overgrowth to see it. The signage cannot be read in its entirety from the vehicle. The only clear statement on close viewing was ‘Customers Only’. Any further instruction was in small font therefore the terms were unclear.! The point is made that the signage is unclear and insufficient in enabling customers to agree terms of parking.!


• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.! There has been no loss to the company or land owner as stated the occupants shopped at the stores including Aldi Store.


• The planning permission for the development (1995/1999, previously the Loxhams Garage) states several conditions that allows customers to park and shop at this site and offsite for 3 hours.


• No evidence of landowner authority has been provided.

KeithP

Is that the full text of your PoPLA appeal or just the headings?

I am sure that by now you will have read post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Did you perhaps miss the fully illustrated PoPLA appeals linked from there? There are example PoPLA appeals there running to over twenty pages.

ABowman

Keith

Thanks for that, yes we have seen and followed the template and have just tidied it up in line with your comments. We have 3 pages of evidence also. There wasn't much more to say other than the points raised above which were in the template letter.

Thanks

Anne-Marie

Coupon-mad

I quite like that POPLA appeal as it says all you need to say! Have you submitted it yet? If not, remove this which is the only point that is hopeless:

• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.! There has been no loss to the company or land owner as stated the occupants shopped at the stores including Aldi Store.

An_Oatcake

Hi A Bowman.

I have exactly the same problem as you, albeit a week or two behind so I’m waiting for the appeal rejection to arrive shortly. Out of interest, did you ever try contacting the landowner or your MP?

I don’t know much about these matters but I fail to see how the ‘you must remain on site’ condition can be valid. As you know, the retail park was sited close to the town centre to try and reduce car usage and so that people could combine a visit with a trip into town. Given that neither the town centre nor the retail park have relocated themselves, I can’t see why Care Parking believe they can pursue this matter in the first place.

Good luck with the POPLA appeal.