Wing Parking Stage 2 turned down. Estate parking

royoliver123

Hello 

I was wanted to get some advice on the following:-

- Do I stand a chance with POPLA?

- Is it okay they have responded to me 6 months after the charge? (Issued in November and appeal put in December. Responded a week ago.)

- The letter says I have to phone Wing Parking to confirm that I am paying and keep the charge at £60. Their office is closed and they provide no further info. Any advice on this? 

Many thanks for any advice you may be able to give me 

Roy

Initial appeal: 

I am not going to pay the fine on two grounds:- - I dispute the charge amount. I am a resident of the estate and parking is free for residents. Therefore, the loss to the landowner is nothing and the parking charge is disproportionately high. - Mitigating circumstances. I was going to an appointment and myself and my young baby got caught in a torrential downpour (you can clearly see evidence of this on the photos). As my baby was cold, I put the heater on full which must have blown my parking permit down slightly. The Wing Parking attendant was in the car park and had ample opportunity to talk to me regarding this. However, instead he waited for me to run back into the house as my baby needed changing and sped away as I was walking back to the car. He drove in a dangerous manner, considerably too fast in an estate car park, especially close to a baby. I realised immediately that my permit had fallen down slightly (all though it is still clearly visible in the photograph). This is completely unreasonable behaviour and caused me considerable distress. I have seen the parking attendant on an almost daily basis, so it would be reasonable to assume that he would know that I am a resident. Wing Parking Response: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the above; we have noted your comments. We have reviewed the case considering your appeal and we confirm that the vehicle concerned was parked in an area where parking is restricted, and that the area is adequately signed to that effect.  We also confirm that the Parking Charge Notice was issued because the vehicle was not clearly displaying a valid permit.  Your appeal is based on the following grounds:  • You are a resident of the estate and you have a permit which had fallen.  • The loss to the landowner is nothing and the PCN charge is disproportionately high.  • The attendant didn’t advise you that the permit wasn’t clearly displayed.  Although we acknowledge you are a resident, this does not mean that parking estate restrictions can be overruled. Permit users must ensure that at all times they position the permit so that no details are obscured or unreadable from the outside of the front windscreen.  Whilst we appreciate that accidents can happen, it is still the responsibility of all drivers to ensure that a valid parking permit is clearly visible at all times whilst the vehicle is parked on the estate. We trust that no parking permit was on clear display on the front windscreen of the vehicle as instructed by parking instruction on estate signs.  The permit was located on the dashboard. However it was partially obscured by the tinting on the lower edge of the vehicle windscreen and not all the information on the permit could be seen. Permit users must ensure that at all times they position the permit so that no details are obscured or are unreadable.  A valid permit includes the requirement that any information is readable and clear for enforcement checks and its validity must be made visible. This includes any dates, location or bay number indicating when, and where, the permit is valid. It is therefore an obvious  fundamental requirement that all details on the permit must be clearly visible and legible from the outside of the front windscreen.  It is the sole responsibility of the driver to ensure that their permit is displayed and valid on the vehicle front windscreen at all times. If for any reason you cannot park with a valid parking permit, we are sorry but you could not park in the estate on this occasion.  We must also refer you to the permits Terms and Conditions which are printed on the reverse of the permit which states ‘This permit is invalid unless it is affixed to the front windscreen and all details are clearly visible.’ Therefore, at the time the Notice was issued, the permit wasn’t on clear display which is in breach of the stated terms and conditions.  Issues relating to genuine pre-estimate of losses or similar, or unfair contract terms are no longer relevant. The Supreme Court decision of 4 November 2015 in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis clearly confirms that the current charging level is lawful and reasonable and motorists parking on private land must comply with the advertised terms and conditions.  In circumstances where the amount being charged for this Parking Charge Notice is broadly in line with that which is charged locally for breach of parking restrictions on the nearby public highway, we do not feel that our charge is unconscionable or extravagant and therefore we believe that it does not constitute an unenforceable penalty or that it is necessary for us to directly relate its value to any genuine pre-estimate of loss suffered.  We have noted your comments that the attendant had ‘ample opportunity’ to talk to you regarding the positioning of your permit however, there is no requirement for our staff to approach any driver/vehicle keeper and inform of parking restrictions. Wardens are merely performing their tasks following parking restrictions stated on signs at the parking estate and enforcing to those who do not comply with them. The issue of the Notice was in accordance with our instructions from our clients and these instructions are strictly enforced. Our staff are not permitted to overlook a clear breach of parking conditions simply because they may be familiar with the vehicle or its driver. The reason for the issue of the Notice is supported by photographs taken at the time and these also support our actions. If you wish to view images of your vehicle at the time of enforcement, you can do so on our website.  Please select the link that says "Enforcement Images" and follow the instructions. You will need to enter both your registration number and the reference number of the Notice you were issued to view the images. However, please note that you DO NOT have to make payment or enter any personal data or credit card details to view the images  We have thoroughly reviewed this case and whilst we appreciate your comments and circumstances, we have acted in accordance with the instructions from our clients and the warning sign that was on display prior to the issue of the Notice. The Parking Charge Notice was correctly and legally issued and therefore the Notice and the charges must stand.

Appeal 2:

Dear Sir 

I am writing to make a stage 2 formal appeal with regards the above parking ticket. 

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and to my MP.

 I am making my appeal due to the following reasons:

I dispute the charge amount  I am a resident of the estate and parking is free for residents. Therefore, the loss to the landowner is nothing and the parking charge is disproportionately high.  

You cited the Parking Eye v Beavis case as evidence as to why my initial appeal is no longer relevant. However, this case has not been legislated in law and does not apply to my case. This is because there is no legitimate interest in enforcing a charge. As permits are not paid for, there is no financial loss to the landowner, a key factor which makes the Parking Eye v Beavis case irrelevant in this circumstance. 

Furthermore, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, it was established that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this therefore voids your argument and upholds my dispute. The charge is therefore an unfair consumer charge without loss or commercial justification. The supreme court found that £85 was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss in Beavis as there was no direct loss to the parking company. This is the same in my case, as parking is free for residents. 

Finally, as my lease does not state that a permit is required to park in the car park, you are in breach of contract. The idea behind primacy of contract is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. The lease does not state a requirement to display a permit to park. There is a large body of case law which establishes this: 

Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] 

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 in the future.

Yours Faithfully

Haringey Response:

Stage 2 appeal against Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 

Parking on Private Land Adjudicator 

Thank you for your appeal submitted via email dated [Insert date customer

submitted appeal]in relation to the Parking Charge Notice issued by Wing Parking Ltd

which is summarised below.

Parking Charge Details

Parking Charge Reference:

Issued On: 22/10/2019 at 12:12:17

Location Code: 

Location: 

Reason for Issue: Not clearly displaying a valid permit

Vehicle Details

Vehicle Registration: 

Make: 

Colour: Black

We can confirm that Wing Parking Ltd is the official parking enforcement contractor

for all Estate Controlled Parking Schemes operating on Haringey Council housing

land. As stated in the Estate Controlled Parking Schemes policies and procedures,

Homes for Haringey investigate and respond to all Stage 2 parking appeals in

fulfilment of our duties as the landlord’s managing agents. Full details of the Estate

Controlled Parking scheme rules can be found on 

In investigating your appeal we have considered the following;

• Any submissions, mitigating circumstances or evidence that you put forward.

• The evidence collected by the officer at the time of issuing the Parking Charge

Notice, including any photographs (see Appendix A).

• The signage and markings for the Estate Controlled Parking Scheme.

• The permits for the Estate Controlled Parking scheme

• The rules of the Estate Controlled Parking Scheme

• The policies and procedures for Haringey Council’s Estate Controlled Parking

Schemes.

• Any other relevant factors

The reason for your appeal are summarised as follows;

1. Various legal grounds

We will respond to each point you raise in your appeal in turn and then detail whether

your appeal has been upheld:

It has been a long-established principle that instructions and information clearly

displayed on warning signs are sufficient to constitute a contract, even in the absence

of any monetary consideration or individual negotiation of terms. Your vehicle was

parked in clear view of a sign and therefore we are satisfied that a legally binding

contract was entered into. Such an opinion is also clearly held by all relevant parties

including our clients, the BPA, POPLA, the County Courts and the Court of Appeal.

The contract to park is offered by Homes for Haringey who holds the necessary legal

interest in the property. Wing Parking is not offering the contract, they are merely

acting as agents in the management of that contract and they have a written and

signed agreement as clients where we authorise them to carry out this service for us.

Both are satisfied that the written and signed agreement between us does provide

sufficient legal authority for Wing Parking to issue the PCN and to seek to recover

payment of that PCN from you.

Regardless of whether a parking charge is based on a breach of contract or a trespass

(or other tort) the parking charges which may be demanded is the amount stated on

the carpark signage. This is because "damages" is specifically defined in the Act as

relating to the amount of the parking charge stated on "one or more notices" (i.e. the

car park signage). There is no question that the charge made is a "penalty", because

Parliament has deemed that parking charges, such as ours, are legally enforceable,

so long as the amount demanded is stated on the car park signage (which it was).

We trust the location where the vehicle was found to be parked was subjected to

private parking restrictions and the landowner is fully within rights to set specific

requirements for vehicles that wish to park. Signs in the estate are clear in stating

“Private parking. Parking conditions apply.” Full parking restrictions on warning sign are

situated at the entrance to the estate which all drivers must pass in order to get onto

the estate itself.

We trust that no valid parking permit was on clear display on vehicle as instructed by

parking instruction on estate signs. It is the sole responsibility of the driver to ensure that

a permit is displayed and valid at all times.

Any vehicle parked on an estate or housing scheme subject to an Estate Parking

Scheme must adhere to the rules of the scheme at all times or risk receiving a

Parking Charge Notice. The rules of the Estate Controlled Parking Scheme can be

seen on the signage at XXXXXX and state the following;

• “Private Parking. Parking Conditions Apply....”

• “....All vehicles must display a valid permit....”

• “....Failure to comply with these conditions may result in the issue of a Parking

Charge Notice....”

The vehicle was parked in breach of the rules of the Estate Controlled Parking

scheme on XXXXXXXXX at the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued

(see images at Appendix A). The Parking Charge Notice was issued legitimately

by the nominated contractor who acted in accordance with stated policies, our

instructions, supported by the permit terms of issues and the warning signs at the

car park entrances.

We are not able to uphold your stage 2 appeal for the reasons stated above and

can confirm that the Parking Charge Notice and associated charges stand.

This rejection of your appeal marks the end of our internal appeals process. You now

have a number of options;

• Pay the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at the discounted price of £60.00 with 14

days of the date of this letter. Please note that after 14 days the price of the PCN

will rise to £100. If you choose this option, you must contact Wing Parking Ltd

 before trying to make the payment as they have to make an

adjustment to enable the discounted price to be paid.

• Make an appeal to the independent Parking On Private Land Appeals service

(POPLA). If you wish to make such an appeal it must be submitted to POPLA with

28 days of receipt of this rejection letter. Do no send your POPLA appeal to us or

our contractor as it will not be dealt with or forwarded to POPLA. You must

contact POPLA directly if you wish to appeal further, quoting the unique

verification code detailed on the first page of this response. If you wish to appeal

to POPLA please do so online via their website 

• Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case (i.e.

you decide to make an appeal to POPLA), you will lose the right to pay the

charge at the discounted rate of £60.00 and be required to pay the higher rate

of £100 should POPLA not decide in your favour.

• By law, we are required to inform you that there is an alternative to the POPLA

appeals service which is provided by the Ombudsman Services

 The Ombudsman Services dispute resolution

service would also be competent to deal with your appeal but we have chosen

not to participate in that service. As a result you must make any further appeals

to POPLA as detailed above.​

Le_Kirk

We can confirm that Wing Parking Ltd is the official parking enforcement contractor for all Estate Controlled Parking Schemes operating on Haringey Council housing land.

Is this council parking effectively?  If it is you will better off going to a site run by Pepipoo as they specialise in council tickets, whilst this forum concentrates on private parking companies.  Go to: -

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

nosferatu1001

Not a huge chance at POPLA, but itll cost Wing £30 and you;ll be no worse off. 

Umkomaas

As you've effectively identified the driver, the protection you had under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) as keeper has disappeared. But don't let this stop you appealing to POPLA - the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, third post, shows you how to construct a POPLA appeal. Even if you lose at POPLA, you're under no obligation to pay Wing, you only need to pay if a Judge tells you to. Invite Wing to issue court proceedings if they pester you beyond POPLA. They don't very often issue court claims, and I think they'd have a very hard job pursuing a resident with an entitlement to park. 

If you want to cause Haringey and Wing some headache, read the following link and follow the advice there. Piling on the pressure might see them drop your case as being too hot to handle!

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS - PPCs OPERATING ON BEHALF OF A PUBLIC BODY

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77121393#Comment_77121393

Coupon-mad

I'd try POPLA but ignore Wing if you lose.  There is no risk.

That was a terrible appeal (sorry, but you missed the entire point or came here too late).  If you had appealed as the registered keeper and not talked about who was driving, your POPLA appeal would have been 100% nailed on for a win by you. 

But so what really, nothing will happen.

twhitehousescat

Did/does PoplA actually apply on counsil land? 

Coupon-mad

Wing cases go to POPLA, yes.

twhitehousescat

yes I know that , I also know of the selling off of properties to arms lengh settups , however in this case "We can confirm that Wing Parking Ltd is the official parking enforcement contractor for all Estate Controlled Parking Schemes operating on Haringey Council housing land."
the land is counsil owned, not arms lengh , therefore if counsil, its being maintained by the public purse , and is not private land as such 

Coupon-mad

Yes, but POPLA does do those cases.

Shame that the OP would have 100% won, had they come here before appealing like that.  So frustrating that people keep blabbing about who was driving by appeaking with the 'story of what happened' then come here.  Luckily, it's only Wing who can be ignored, but next time OP, get the appeal right!

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.htmlantsot

What does your lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention the need to display a permit? then it may take primacy over the self serving TnC of the scammer, and interfere with your lawful right to “quiet enjoyment” of your property, possible an offence under The Landlord and Ten Acts.

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 in some cases, cancellation.

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 enacted

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

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