Formal Letter of Claim from QDR Solicitors instructed by ZZPS on behalf of SABA

MrReddy

Hi,
I had my Popla appeal declined in Feb 2020....

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant advises that they purchased a ticket, so the operator has not lost revenue. They advise that there are two car parks managed by the operator. They explain that they parked in the first car park. They advise that the Saba app does not make it clear which car park is which and does not provided the full name from the car park. They explain that the location pins are in the wrong location. They advise that the signage at the site does not match the details on the app. They explain that they have received three PCN. The appellant has provided two documents, three photographs and a video to support their appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. I am satisfied that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. The operator has provided photographs of the signage, which it has installed around the car park. These signs show the following terms and conditions: “Per Day (Peak) £8.40… Only P&D tickets/parking sessions purchased from LDS CP2 machines (Red Machines) and / or location code, are valid within this Car Park… Unauthorised or incorrectly parked vehicles will be issued with a Parking Charge Notice of £100.00”. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the driver failed to pay for their parking. The appellant advises that they purchased a ticket, so the operator has not lost revenue. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. POFA 2012 defines “adequate notice” as follows: “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”. Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the decision of the Supreme Court, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. They advise that there are two car parks managed by the operator. They explain that they parked in the first car park. Having reviewed the evidence provided by both the appellant and operator it is clear that the appellant was not parked in the location they have indicated but were in fact parked in the second car park between the other two. They advise that the Saba app does not make it clear which car park is which and does not provided the full name from the car park. The appellant has provided a screen shot showing that they could click the I icon and the app provides them with the full name of the car park, the full addresses are also provided. They explain that the location pins are in the wrong location. The operator has provided a map showing the location of the car parks on site. This map indicates that the pins are in the correct location. They advise that the signage at the site does not match the details on the app. The operator has provided examples of the signage which it has installed at the site. These clearly indicate the name of the car park and this matches the details on the app. They explain that they have received three PCN. Each POPLA appeal considers why a single PCN was issued. The appellant has provided two documents, three photographs and a video to support their appeal. Having reviewed the evidence provided including the copy of a receipt I can see that no valid payment was made covering this period of parking. This breaches the terms and conditions for the use of the site. POPLA’s role is to assess if the operator has issued the PCN in accordance with the conditions of the contract. As the terms and conditions of the car park have not been met, I conclude that the operator has issued the PCN correctly, the appeal is refused.

I did not pay the penalty and ignored all the recovery letters.
However, today received the letter below, dated 25th Sep.

Q- Can ZPPS instruct QDR to take any legal actions on behalf of SABA?
Also, I have been advised to file for a SAR report. Can anyone provide me with a template, please?

D_P_Dance

It is only a debt if a judge says it is.  IMO the PoPLa decision is short on detail, they have not addressed the point about where the car was parked, a lazy result, ignore it. 

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, sometimes it can lead to cancellation.,

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers. On 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, and hopefully this will become law shortly

Le_Kirk

For template and advice please read the NEWBIE sticky, just below where you clicked on the New Thread button. It is advised to read that thread before posting.  Had you done so you would have seen that POPLA decisions are not binding on the motorist.

Redx

I doubt that the PCN was a Penalty !! Probably P for Parking

Only the claimant can issue court proceedings , but can use a solicitor firm to do so as a sub contractor

Zzps are powerless and can do nothing at all , ignore zzps

Email a SAR to the DPO at Saba to obtain all your data , they own the alleged debt

beamerguy

QDR are an offshoot of Wright Hassall solicitors who once were given the job of POPLA by the dinosaur the BPA.   They made a complete pigs ear it and were quickly replaced by the POPLA you see today who are just another dinosaur which government will replace shortly.  

ZZPS are simply clowns in the circus and as clowns they do not issue parking tickets.  Therefore, QDR are telling you rubbish ...... ZZPS cannot instruct them as they do not own the debt so it is a false claim.

They no doubt have added a fake amount to the claim ?

So, you now need to ask them for a copy of the contract with ZZPS .... There is none
Also request their legal authority to add fake amounts .... They have none

See what happens to firms like QDR in court when they fake it.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

MrReddy

beamerguy said:

QDR are an offshoot of Wright Hassall solicitors who once were given the job of POPLA by the dinosaur the BPA.   They made a complete pigs ear it and were quickly replaced by the POPLA you see today who are just another dinosaur which government will replace shortly.  

ZZPS are simply clowns in the circus and as clowns they do not issue parking tickets.  Therefore, QDR are telling you rubbish ...... ZZPS cannot instruct them as they do not own the debt so it is a false claim.

They no doubt have added a fake amount to the claim ?

So, you now need to ask them for a copy of the contract with ZZPS .... There is none
Also request their legal authority to add fake amounts .... They have none

See what happens to firms like QDR in court when they fake it.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Thanks a lot for your inputs. I should have stated that the total amount is for 3 PCN's (same issue on 3 different days), my apologies for missing this info.
Also, Section 1 Box D (I dispute the Debt) and Section 2, 3, and 4 are missing in both the letter packs they sent me (they sent 2 packs dated 24th Sep and 25 Sep and both are missing these sections). 
Should I still reply to them?

MrReddy

They have added £82 as additional charges per PCN

Redx

You can reply and dispute the whole alleged debt including the 3 additional charges as double recovery , but you won't get it resolved doing this

A SAR to the DPO at the PPC should be done asap if not done already

nosferatu1001

As you know you do not need to use any of their forms in your reply
Not replying is not mentioned as an option here. 

MrReddy

My offenses are exactly the same as this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6015242/saba-parking-pcn-notice-served-at-railway-station/p1. Its quite evident that many are getting confused with the layout (old and new parking) and signage. Especially if you are purchasing on the App, it's even more confusing as one of the car parks which is at the back of the station is apparently part of the old car park but it is not represented on the App even though it is completely detached (have to cross the station entrance to enter it) from the one listed. Do "Signage" laws apply to the Mobile Apps as well?

I will reply to the Formal letter and apply for SAR report, however, I just want to know if my "offenses" can be defended at all? 

beamerguy

MrReddy said:

er, I just want to know if my "offenses" can be defended at all? 

All cases can be defended against PPC's especially with the help of this forum