ZZPS Enterprise parking solutions Welcome Inn Manchester M45 M25 Holts Brewery

PocketFluff_3

These pirates have turned a dead pub into a parking farm. A friend of a cousin's acquaintance recently got caught there and asked for my help as he was successful in getting all charges cancelled pre-POPLA and he wants to help others caught in the same or similar trap.
He asked me to post the text of his appeal here and say thanks to all the other posters that he cut and pasted bits from, while using his own skill to form a solid case.
My mate's cousin says to remember it was only successful for her own particular circumstances and you must carefully edit it to fit your own.

Customer Services <customerservices@zzps.co.uk>
Fri dd/mm/yyyy hh:mm
Good morning

Thank you for your email which has been noted accordingly.

I can confirm we have fully reviewed all matters pertaining to this PCN and the PCN has been closed on this occasion.

The account is closed and you will not receive any further correspondence from our company regarding this matter.

Kind regards

Sarah

On day, d mmm yyyy at hh:mm, aaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xxx> wrote:

    To ZZPS Limited
    appeals@ipaymypcn.net
    customerservices@zzps.co.uk

    From: name
    address
    address
    address
    address

    Dated: date

    Dear Sir

    Reference xxxxxxxxx
    Enterprise parking solutions ltd
    PCN ENTPA99999999999
    Vehicle VRN xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Issue Date date



    I would like to appeal against this notice.
    The grounds for my appeal are as follows:


    Summary of appeal:

    1. Non-compliant timescale for delivery of notices
    2. The signage was inadequate
    3. Non-compliant format
    4. No standing or authority
    5. Unreasonable/unfair terms
    6. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    7. Inadequate photographs


    Detail of appeal:

    1. Non-compliant timescale for delivery of notices. You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver a Notice to Keeper within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act.

    I am the vehicle's driver and keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definitions under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). You have only recently sent me your initial PCN letter "Notice to driver/hirer" following many months and many speculative and exploitative demands for excessive sums of money and despite your initial claim dating from August of last year.

    You were informed of my details as driver and keeper within 28 days of your Notice to Registered Keeper dated dd mm yyyy.

    You have only recently sent me your Notice to driver/hirer dated dd mm yyyy.

    Therefore you have clearly failed to send your Notice to driver/hirer within the regulatory timeframe as designated under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    Your Notice is almost three months late. You have contravened all time limit provisions of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012

    You have subjected me and my family to a deluge of excessive and false invoices over the intervening period rather than complying with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 . Such behaviour by a parking agency who wish to uphold respect for the civil law is clearly unreasonable and unacceptable.

    Despite your offer to "roll back" you have continued to send noisome demands, the last of which dated 09/01/2020 for £182 and post dating your most recent notice, therefore you can see what little confidence I hold in your good faith in this matter.


    2. The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed.
    At the time of parking and leaving the car park the occupants of the car did not see any signs that mentioned restricted parking. I require ZZPS to state the height and position of each sign in their response. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. Therefore, it is the fault of ZZPS in the drafting and positioning of the signs that the driver did not see them at all. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not 'customers' of ZZPS and so are not expecting to read a contract. I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    The driver saw no visible parking notices on entering the car park and parked at the back of the car park near to the western perimeter where there are no signs easily visible before making his way along a service road on the western perimeter of the building where there are signs stating "No Parking or Stopping" to the front of the public house where a single sign states "Parking for Welcome Inn Customers only". As a bona fide customer the driver felt that he was allowed to park on the car park.

    The driver did not enter the public house, where apparently the parking registration machine is located. His companion entered the bar and purchased drinks which were consumed outside the premises but within the outside seating area. Therefore the driver was not made aware of the requirement to register for car parking, although he was, clearly, entitled as a customer to use the car park.

    A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver did not see any sign; there was no consideration/acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties.


    3. Non-compliant format of Notice to Keeper - no keeper liability established under Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. The 'period of parking' is not shown on the Notice to Keeper , only the time of issue of a PCN. Therefore the wording makes this a non-compliant Notice to Keeper under the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. According to Schedule 4 para 8, the Notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. The Notice to Keeper is a nullity so no keeper liability exists.

    You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely failing to give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. Instead you have chosen to target me and my family with a barrage of excessive and false invoices over the intervening period rather than complying with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 . Such actions by a parking agency who wish to uphold respect for the civil law is clearly unreasonable and unacceptable.


    4. No standing or authority to pursue neither charges, nor form contracts with drivers.
    I believe that ZZPS has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, or to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such a title, ZZPS must have an assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This notice has not been produced by ZZPS in their rejection statement; therefore I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that ZZPS merely did hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing or authority in their own right, which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    I therefore put ZZPS to strict proof to provide an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ZZPS and the landowner. This is required so that I can check that it allows ZZPS to make contracts with drivers and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.).


    5. Unreasonable and unfair terms
    The charge that was levied is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms, which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer". The car was parked in good faith as the driver was a bona fide customer.

    The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”


    6. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states:

    19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable.

    The ZZPS Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at the nearby shops and cafes if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the car was parked in the FREE car park of a substantially empty and under patronaged public house, namely The Welcome Inn, Prestwich, Manchester and therefore no parking or commercial revenue is to be lost.

    The BPA Code of Practice uses the word ‘MUST’. ZZPS cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach.

    I have not received any breakdown of how ZZPS calculated their charge and so therefore require ZZPS to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at. I am aware from court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimate losses. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event. The landowner/occupier would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

    The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. ZZPS cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some woolly statement that merely claims that charges were calculated to compensate ZZPS for their “losses”.

    19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.

    The demand for a payment of £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.

    In addition, the charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area.

    ZZPS have no financial interest in this car park, and there is no commercial justification for this charge.


    7. Photographs showing the car moving in front of a camera cannot, by definition, be parking.


    This concludes my appeal and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld.

    Yours sincerely,

    X.Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--
Customer Services
for and on behalf of ZZPS Limited
Bacchus House  | 1 Station Road | Addlestone | Surrey | KT15 2AG
E:        customerservices@zzps.co.uk
W:       www.zzps.co.uk
T:        +44 (0)1932 918916

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and be advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
This footer also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority, states them to be the views of ZZPS Limited.

ZZPS Limited, registered in England & Wales, numbered 07846404   VAT No. 133 2637 35 Registered Office: 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, WC2H 9JQ

D_P_Dance

If this is a pre PoPLA appeal why not use the one already written in the stickies and save this for PoPLA

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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.

KeithP

TD, the OP claims that was an appeal to ZZPS, a debt collector, who cancelled the parking charge.

Sounds a bit far fetched to me.

PocketFluff_3

KeithP are you working for zzps on the quiet then.

PocketFluff_3

D_P_Dance said:

If this is a pre PoPLA appeal why not use the one already written in the stickies and save this for PoPLA

D_P_Dance just posting here as a thank you note. My mates sister won the case following my directions, pre popla but after a lot of threatening letters from these sub humans.

If you want to know more just re-read my original post