PCN issued at Matisse road Hounslow by private parking solutions (London) limited - appeal rejected

Bob50000

Hi wajira27 - really sorry to see that the POPLA appeal failed.  I am a few weeks behind you with an appeal at the same location - awaiting POPLA judgement (not with much hope after yours).   I am absolutely gobsmacked that your appeal was not successful, the idea that it is legally justifiable for a parking company to fine you £60 + + + for stopping for 90 seconds to attend a medical situation is unfathomable to me - not to mention all the other obvious (to us) problems with their processes.  

I think these guys have created a money trap with this location and are rinsing it for everything they can get until it is legally challenged.  I intend to write a complaint to the BPA, POPLA, the land owner and the local MP or council off the back of this behaviour, there are several of us who have been 'caught' and who knows how many that have just paid the fine rather than fight it.  

It's also ludicrous that POPLA have allowed other (at least one on these forums) appeals through at the same location, one of which was due to 'forbidding signage' - the lack of consistency is nonsensical.  @ others on this forum, is there no way of pointing out these inconsistencies of judgement to POPLA? If not then what is the point of them as an arbiter?

@wajira27 - What are you planning to do next?  

Many thanks all

B789

If POPLA reject the appeal it doesn't matter. t could just be that the tea boy was going through the appeals on the day. If an appeal is rejected at POPLA stage, you just power on and weather the useless debt collector letter and wait until/if a claim is started. All covered in the Newbies/FAQ thread.

Coupon-mad

Everyone just ignores a lost POPLA appeal.

Bob50000

I have just received notification that my POPLA appeal was successful against PPS London Ltd at this location.  I have posted the decision in the "POPLA Decisions" thread.  @wajira27 Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you in your own attempts to get this overturned.

Alfakhir

wajira27 said:

fisherjim said:

B789 said:

I still think you should highlight to the POPLA assessor that, irrespective of what they decide regarding the validity of the contract between the landowner and the PPC, there was no contract between the driver and the PPC because of the forbidding sign.

Just two legs about "contracts" that you can use in your POPLA appeal. The PPC has to either rebut or lose and the assessor also knows this.

@w@wajira27 Did you actually mention this in your POPLA appeal because they don't seem to have addressed it, even though they state there can be no grace period because there is no offer to park?

They have yet again made a complete pigs ear of it in favour of a scam, if there is no parking service to offer, hence no contract, the charge must be a penalty for trespass which it cannot be!

yes i did explain - there was no contract between the driver and the PPC because of the forbidding sign.

What was the end result if you don't mind me asking? 

JusticeFighter66

Hi All, I just got stung by these Petty Criminals. I am determined to fight to the end. I saw a link to Parking Prankster on the first page and what he had to say about a similar location seemed persuasive. I have threatened them with a counter claim because they illegally obtained my info from DVLA as their claim is not valid to begin with. There is case law to support this:

It is not possible that a valid parking charge exists for the following reasons

The signage cannot be safely read while driving. There can therefore be no meeting of minds and no contract by performance

The signage is forbidding and makes no offer to the motorist. There can therefore be no contract.

Even if there was a contract  the signage fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, and so any contract would be non-bindng on the consumer

Even if there were a binding contract the charge would be a penalty and unfair consumer term as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is not saved by the case law in ParkingEye v Beavis.

There was therefore no valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA.

Additionally the operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping.

My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). You are misusing this data by attempting to claim a charge is do when there is no possibility a lawful reason exists. Additionally you may only obtain and use this data from the DVLA for parking, and not for stopping.

This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided).

The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, concerns a motorist sent a parking charge for briefly stopping at Liverpool Business Park. The signage there has the equivalent forbidding wording to the signage in this case. The judge ruled that no contract could exist and therefore data had been wrongly obtained from the DVLA. This is therefore a persuasive case that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued, and that a sum of at least £250 is compensation for pursuing a purported parking charge when there is no reasonable prospect of success.

I therefore claim £250.

Would love to here how others have gotten on?

Le_Kirk

You've dropped your post on to a thread that was started in 2023; if you want help, I suggest you start a new thread and post your comments/questions in that new thread.