P,ease he,p with POPLA letter cor.

Bettyb567

Hi
My first post, so please be kind!

I have spent days searching and reading through posts\ threads and advice on the forum about writing a POPLA appeal letter for a private parking fine. I’ve read forum guidances, but still finding it a little difficult to find specific threads or examples letters  mentioned in the posts. 

Facts:
-   Issue date: 08.19. 11.12.2022. Unauthorised parking (in free car park)

 -  Received posted PCN from U.K.-CPM11.12.2022: I sent Appeal 12.01.2923  CPM reject appeal email: 13.01.2023: 2nd PCN issued  by CPM 14.01.2023.   
 - The letter was addressed to me and to,d liability transferred to me.
-  NO POPLA code given

Thank you so much to those of you who have been giving such great advice to the likes of me and offering your letters as templates. I found a couple of examples but not sure if I’ve picked the right one (below) as it’s  a bitI older than others I’ve seen on the Newbies thread. 
————————————-
Dear POPLA Assesor,
Re ********* parking charge notice ********.      POPLA ref **********
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal this charge on the following grounds;
1) No Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss
2) Contract with Landowner
3) Inadequate Signage
4) The alleged contravention did not occur

1) a) The Charge is not a contractual fee – it is a disguised breach
The Operator has attempted to avoid the necessity of having to justify a pre estimate of loss by stating that this is a contractually agreed fee on their signage. However on both the parking charge notice (which is described as exactly that, NOT an invoice for an agreed fee) and the rejection letter to my appeal they state that the charge is for being "in contravention of" and having "breached" the terms and conditions of parking. In addition, the wording on their sign also states that "unauthorised parking may result in your vehicle being issued with a parking charge notice".

The charge must be either for damages or a fee paid for parking (consideration) it cannot be for both and in order for it to be consideration, it would have to mean that permission to park without a permit was given providing a fee was paid. Clearly permission to "park in breach" cannot be granted and I therefore submit that it is clear that the amount sought is for parking in breach and that the amount represents liquidated damages which is compensation agreed in advance.

I contend that the same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee but is a disguised breach and must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss to be enforceable.

b) The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss
The charge of £100 is being sought for an alleged breach of the parking terms namely “unauthorised parking” consequently I contend, and the BPA code of practise states, that a charge for breach must be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

Visitors can park for free in all parking bays and I therefore contend there was no loss caused to either the Operator, or the landowner, by any alleged breach.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre co v New Garage Motor co (1915), Lord Dunedin stated that a stipulation "will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach" and "there is an assumption that it is penalty when a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

As the charge in this case is the same lump sum whether the vehicle is parked for 10 minutes or for 24 hours and the same amount is charged for any alleged contravention, it is clear that this is punitive and that no consideration has been given to calculating a genuine pre estimate of loss in this case.

In the case of Parking Eye v Smith in Manchester County Court December 2011, the Judge ruled that the only amount the Operator could claim is the amount that the Driver should have paid into the machine. In this case, as stated earlier, this is a free car park, so no monetary loss occurred to either the Operator or to the Landowner.

I therefore require the Operator to submit a full breakdown of their genuine pre estimate of loss to show how this loss was calculated in this particular parking area and for this particular alleged breach.
Operational business costs cannot possibly flow as a direct result of any breach as the operator would be in the same position whether or not any breaches occur.

I would also refer them to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, where it states that parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the Landowner during the time the Motorist is parked there and remind them that the amount in this case is nothing.

The operator will no doubt state that loss was incurred as a result of the appeals process after the parking charge notice was issued but in order for this to represent a genuine pre estimate of loss, they must first show that they incurred an initial loss as a direct result of the alleged breach.

This initial loss is fundamental and without it, costs incurred subsequently cannot be reasonably claimed to have been caused by the breach and as I have stated earlier - there was no initial loss.

Christopher Adamson stated in a POPLA appeal against VCS Ltd that’s 
"the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonable moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive. In this case it is clear that the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter parking for longer than the time paid for. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the charge can be commercially justified".

In another recently upheld POPLA appeal, Marina Kapour did not accept a submission by the operator that the inclusion of costs which were made up of general business costs was commercially justified. She said:

"the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant".

The same applies in my case, and POPLA must show consistency where similar arguments are raised by appellants. The amount of £100 demanded is punitive and unreasonable, is not a contractual fee and can be neither be commercially justified or proved to be a genuine pre estimate of loss and I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed
i hope to hear from you shortly.
Yours  sincerely 

——————.   

iI’m concerned that  he refers to ‘recent appeals’ for which I don’t have any info, so maybe I should remove them? 
i  really hope you’ll be able to help and clarify ;
1. Am I too late to appeal to POPLA? I’ve been sick last week with flu 
2. can I still appeal to  to POPLA without code?
3. Do I go back to CPM and ask for a code?

4. Is there a l better letter I can use?

 

Coupon-mad

You can't use POPLA.  It's UKCPM, who are not in the BPA, so there is no POPLA.

Complain to the landowner to cancel it.

No paying!

What you found is REALLY old and out of date, eight years out of date.  DO NOT STATE THIS:

"The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre Estimate of Loss"

No.

Bettyb567

Thanks ! That’s prob. Why I couldn’t find anything!  A few things prong to mind if that’s ok: - Are there any examples of what the landowner letter should include ? - Once I send that, I take it there’s nothing else I can do,  - so if they reject that appeal to them what happens next?  - Are you able to send me a link to more recent POPLA letters, it’d be nice to see them!! Thank you again

Le_Kirk

Bettyb567 said:

Thanks ! That’s prob. Why I couldn’t find anything!  A few things prong to mind if that’s ok: - Are there any examples of what the landowner letter should include ? - Once I send that, I take it there’s nothing else I can do,  - so if they reject that appeal to them what happens next?  - Are you able to send me a link to more recent POPLA letters, it’d be nice to see them!! Thank you again

You could read a thread entitled: -

Successful complaints about private parking tickets - how to get them cancelled!

There might be some letters in there or you could just write from the heart, tell it how you feel.  There is no point in having links to POPLA letters as you have been told that the PPC is not in the BPA but in the IPC, anyway there is a whole section in the NEWBIE sticky about POPLA appeals that you could read for inspiration.

Coupon-mad

The latest post on the Successful Complaints thread only YESTERDAY has an example complaint.  That is what the thread is for and it is full of examples.4

It is why it is the first hyperlink after the Q&A in the NEWBIES thread which says "do this as PLAN A at any stage and in all cases".