POPLA refused my appeal - should I write back?

nuremburger06

Hi. I recently received a PCN from Premier Park for overstaying. The car park is adjacent to a rail station car park and I paid for parking via RingGo, incorrectly believing it to be the rail station car park. POPLA have refused the appeal saying that I overstayed by 1 hour and 58 minutes. In grounds for appeal I submitted photos of the parking signs that state the limit is 5 hours, so if I accept I have overstayed, it was by 58 minutes. I've also included photos of the signage which does not make it clear that the rail station car park is separate to the retail complex car park. The space in which I parked was immediately next to the rail station pick up area, which is why I thought it was the rail station car park. In their response to my appeal, POPLA have given no consideration to the photos and information that I provided. They've simply relied on PDFs of the car park signs which show a maximum stay time of 4 hours, whereas the actual signs in the car park state 5 hours. I also feel aggrieved that they have not even mentioned that I paid for parking and sent them the receipt. I've received a demand for payment from Premier Park that I am not going to pay, but I was wondering if it is worth writing to Premier Park to say that I won't pay because POPLA have not considered my appeal properly. Any help or advice would be appreciated, thank you.

Umkomaas

The only way to get this cancelled is for a Judge to confirm it. There is nothing further to do at this stage if you don’t want to pay.

Await a Letter of Claim or court papers from the Northampton CCBC and deal with it then.

Come back on this thread if you get either. Prepare yourself for dealing with this by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which runs you through from the LoC to the actual court hearing.

The more you know now, the better you will deal with it in due course.

Coupon-mad

They've simply relied on PDFs of the car park signs which show a maximum stay time of 4 hours, whereas the actual signs in the car park state 5 hours.

Keep that in your back pocket.

It's highly likely PP and BW Legal will muck this up in a claim!

I was wondering if it is worth writing to Premier Park to say that I won't pay because POPLA have not considered my appeal properly.

No. And be aware PP read this forum.

The_Deep

They are obviously trying to scam you so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

nuremburger06

Thank you for all the advice, some great tips. I’ll definitely be writing to my MP.

nuremburger06

Umkomaas wrote: »

The only way to get this cancelled is for a Judge to confirm it. There is nothing further to do at this stage if you don’t want to pay.

Await a Letter of Claim or court papers from the Northampton CCBC and deal with it then.

Come back on this thread if you get either. Prepare yourself for dealing with this by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which runs you through from the LoC to the actual court hearing.

The more you know now, the better you will deal with it in due course.

Hi. So I've received a letter of claim from BW Legal. Should I write back to them or await court summons? They've given me until November to respond before they issue a claim against me.

KeithP

You now need to be reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread where you will find comprehensive guidance on how to deal with that Letter of Claim and everything else court related.

But you already know that. Umkomaas told you that back in April.

nuremburger06

KeithP wrote: »

You now need to be reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread where you will find comprehensive guidance on how to deal with that Letter of Claim and everything else court related.

But you already know that. Umkomaas told you that back in April.

Hi. Cheers for the reply. Read the newbies post and SAR has been sent.

Ralph-y

did you get pictures of the signs ?


Ralph:cool:

nuremburger06

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number xxxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, and submits that he is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any other amount.

2. The Particulars of Claim set out that the Claimant’s claim is for the sum of £106.28 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”). Further, that the terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the date of issue to pay the PCN but the Defendant failed to do so.

3. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars of Claim, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. In any case, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

5. The land which forms the basis of the claim consists of a retail and shopping complex and a large car park. Blackburn rail station is also located on this site and there is a shared entrance to the site from the main road.

6. On entering the site, there is a sign pointing towards the car park with a railway sign directly below. Underneath this there is another signing welcoming users to private land. It is not set out in clear terms which car park belongs to who. Additionally, the terms on the signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. Further to the above, signage upon entry to the car park does not include sufficient detail regarding the terms and conditions, or when and where parking permits are not-valid. In any case, the signage at the entrance is at best an invitation to treat. Therefore, no contract could be formed and any additional terms and conditions on further signage do not need to be accepted.

8. There are a number of signs displayed in the car park setting out the terms but none of these signs contain any information whatsoever that distinguishes between the land of the rail station car park and the ‘private land’ to which the current claim relates. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a rail station user with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract was ever agreed and no contract ever existed between the Defendant and the Claimant.

9. The Defendant submits that there can be no contractual agreement between the parties due to the failure of the Claimant to provide adequate signage specifically indicating any parking restrictions.

10. In earlier exchanges with the Defendant, the Claimant sought to rely on photographs of signage taken in June and July 2018. These photos stipulated a maximum stay period of 4 hours. The actual signage that was in place at the time of the alleged contravention stipulate a maximum stay time of 5 hours (photos from 16 March 2019 available on request).

11. This further reiterates the Defendant’s position that the signage the Claimant seeks to rely on is unclear and confusing. The Defendant submits therefore, that the signage is insufficient and that no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally.

12. The signs further fail because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for; this is an ICO breach and contrary to the code of practice.

13. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third-party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £141.28, made up of various ‘fees’. This appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the costs claimed for and in any case, any purported costs are not recoverable from the Defendant.

15. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is allegedly owed by the Claimant. The Court may be interested to know that the Defendant received, from the Claimant, a ‘notice of pending County Court Judgement’ dated 13 January 2020.

16. In this letter the Claimants states that the Defendant has failed to respond with any proposals for payment or the reasons why the debt is disputed. This is not true. The Defendant has staunchly denied ever being liable to any sum to the Claimant and has stated this in several exchanges with the Claimant. The material fact is that the Claimant has chosen to ignore written submissions from the Defendant and resorted to scaremongering and numerous threatening demands for payment in an attempt to force the Defendant to pay.

17. The letter also seeks to compromise proceedings by stating that a judgement will be filed. The Defendant submits that the deadline for filing a response has not yet passed and so there was no need for the Claimant to write to the Defendant.

18. To conclude, the Defendant respectfully submits that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. The Defendant denies breaching any of the Claimant’s purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

19. Accordingly, the Court is respectfully invited to strike out the claim pursuant to the case management powers set out in Rule 3.4(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

Coupon-mad

What's the issued date of the claim and on what day (exactly) did you do the AOS?