IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Car Parking Partnership fine

24

Replies

  • stevowmtstevowmt Forumite
    18 Posts
    Hello coupon-mad

    attached is the pic of the back (again replace the z with a p on the http)

    Thanks for the advice! Do you have a link to the 'first appeals'.

    thanks again

    steve

    [IMG]httz://tinypic.com/r/15mlaqd/5[/IMG]
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    This thread explains what to do:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...a#post61647745

    Do not say who was driving, write the first challenge as shown, either a short or a longer one, not takling about 'what happened' either.

    At POPLA stage you'll need a different stronger appeal so read other threads & learn from them in readiness but do ask for help before POPLA stage.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • stevowmtstevowmt Forumite
    18 Posts
    Hello Coupon-mad

    CCP today replied to my initial appeal. I now wish to appeal to POPLA. Do you have any guidance/advice/help. I could use with some, I'm not very experienced doing this. Thanks so much for your help.

    Should I appeal on the grounds that they didn't follow BPA rules of offering a 40% reduction if paid early on my original ticket?

    Ive attached the pictures of the letter, just replace the z with a p on all three links

    thanks so much!

    httz://tinypic.com/r/357itjq/5
    httz://tinypic.com/r/16krprb/5
    httz://tinypic.com/r/28jl311/5
  • edited 9 March 2016 at 5:39PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 9 March 2016 at 5:39PM
    Old examples of POPLA appeals are not helpful so i have deleted the old contents of this 2013 post.

    NEWBIES need to search the forum for 'POPLA' and read recent examples because the legal arguments change over time.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Guys_DadGuys_Dad Forumite
    11K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    stevowmt wrote: »
    Hello coupon-mad

    here is my appeal letter to popla, what do you think?

    thanks so much, steve.





    Dear Sir/Madam,
    RE: POPLA 3561793406

    Civil Parking Notice (CPN): XXXXXX
    Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXX
    Date of Issue: 30/04/2013
    Company in question: The Car Parking Partnership

    On the above date, I was issued with a CPN for parking without a valid permit at Roehampton University. There were no signs anywhere near my car and I did not observe any signs on entry to the area. I only parked there as I thought I was allowed, the signage was extremely poor, with there most significantly not being any signs at all around where I parked my car.

    I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

    I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

    1. Lack of signage/no contract/[COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]grace period[/COLOR]
    2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges.
    3. VAT
    4. Inappropriate parking charge
    5. Prompt payment not 40% less
    6. No breach/trespass

    1. Lack of signage/no contract/[COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]grace period[/COLOR] Irrelevant scatter-gun approach, makes it look like you don't know what you are talking about

    There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and The Car Parking Partnership (CPP). [COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]I did not see any signs [/COLOR]There were no large BPA standard signs when I first entered the car park and therefore I had no idea about any alleged contract or restrictions and would certainly not have agreed to pay this extortionate 'charge' under any circumstances.

    There were no signs at all located near where I parked. Also, there [COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]was no indication of the grace period and[/COLOR] were no staff available to ask on site.
    - [COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace
    period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask
    what it is.[/COLOR] "us" here is the BPA and there is no requirement for a PPC to display any grace period.

    2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
    The CPP parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. However, I doubt that CPP has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. I therefore require CPP to supply and POPLA to review:

    • A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
    • A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
    • A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
    • Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car where the car in question was parked
    [COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]3. VAT
    In addition, if CPP are alleging that this ticket is a contractual sum then why are they not adhering to any of the regulations surrounding VAT? They did not provide me with a VAT invoice, which states what service I have apparently received in exchange for the charge. The BPA have stated categorically that private parking charges do not attract VAT (based on the VCS -v- HMRC 2013 appeal decision) and therefore it follows that private parking charges cannot be a contractual matter, and can only represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. A private parking company cannot allege a contract exists on the one hand (for POPLA and for the public) and yet suggest it's non-contractual and therefore a non-VAT matter (for HMRC).[/COLOR] Not your concern. Already dismissed as irrelevant by adjudicator on recent PPC posted lost POPLA appeal
    4. Inappropriate parking charge
    The demand for a payment of £85 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The 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 based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
    you suffer.

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

    I require CPP 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.

    5. Prompt payment discount not 40% less

    In addition, CPP are also not compliant with the early payment discount clause of the BPA code of practice which states:

    19.7 If prompt payment is made, you must offer a reduced
    payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the
    charge. The reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of
    the full charge. ‘Prompt payment’ is defined as 14 days from
    the date the driver or the keeper received the notice.


    The discount that CPP offered for payment within 14 days was £60, 40% off of £85 is £51, a big difference to the £60 offered.

    6. No breach/trespass

    If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the CPP sign thought you couldn't see any signs? & ticket do not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if CPP do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.

    With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform CPP to cancel the CPN.

    Yours [COLOR="rgb(105, 105, 105)"]Sincerely[/COLOR]faithfully,
    xxxxxxxxx

    Don't know where to start, Steve. Well, I do. REMOVE YOUR NAME ANDALL IDENTIFYING REFS FROM THE LETTER ON HERE AS ABOVE.

    Then take a look at the suggested changes in bold.
  • stevowmtstevowmt Forumite
    18 Posts
    Hello Guys dad! Whoops yeah, sorry! Here is a revised letter, what do you think. Is there anything I can add? Steve

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    RE: POPLA XXXXXXX

    Civil Parking Notice (CPN): XXXXXXXXXX
    Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXX
    Date of Issue: 30/04/2013
    Company in question: The Car Parking Partnership (CPP)

    On the above date, I was issued with a CPN for parking without a valid permit at Roehampton University. There were no signs anywhere near my car and I did not observe any signs on entry to the area. I only parked there as I thought I was allowed, the signage was extremely poor, with there most significantly not being any signs at all around where I parked my car.

    I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

    I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

    1. Lack of signage
    2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
    3. Inappropriate parking charge
    4. Prompt payment not 40% less
    5. No breach/trespass

    1. Lack of signage

    There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and The Car Parking Partnership (CPP). I did not see any signs. There were no large BPA standard signs when I first entered the car park and therefore I had no idea about any alleged contract or restrictions and would certainly not have agreed to pay this extortionate 'charge' under any circumstances.

    There were no signs at all located near where I parked.

    2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges

    The CPP parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. However, I doubt that CPP has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. I therefore require CPP to supply and POPLA to review:

    • A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
    • A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
    • A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
    • Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car where the car in question was parked.

    3. Inappropriate parking charge

    The demand for a payment of £85 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The 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 based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
    you suffer.

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

    I require CPP 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.

    4. Prompt payment discount not 40% less

    In addition, CPP are also not compliant with the early payment discount clause of the BPA code of practice which states:

    19.7 If prompt payment is made, you must offer a reduced
    payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the
    charge. The reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of
    the full charge. ‘Prompt payment’ is defined as 14 days from
    the date the driver or the keeper received the notice.


    The discount that CPP offered for payment within 14 days was £60, 40% off of £85 is £51, a big difference to the £60 offered.

    5. No breach/trespass

    If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the CPP ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if CPP do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.

    With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform CPP to cancel the CPN.

    Yours faithfully,

    XXXXXXXXXXX
  • Guys_DadGuys_Dad Forumite
    11K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just going out, so a bit rushed, but you should ask PPC to provide photographic evidence that its entry and other signs are BPA compliant under your point 1.

    Point 2 "Contract". You want the PPC to show POPLA proof that they have the right to charge and pursue motorists who fail to do whatever they actually accused you of doing.

    There is a recent thread on here about PPCs not knowing what the true cost is, started within the last week, that lists what one PPC considered costs. You could include these as items that should not be considered as pre-estimate cost items but as costs of running the business. Have a quick look.

    Ok, off now, but I would wait till this evening when others will be along to give their help too.
  • edited 8 July 2013 at 11:06AM
    nigelbbnigelbb Forumite
    3.6K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 8 July 2013 at 11:06AM
    !!!!!! please take the advice that you were given. By saying "I did this" & "I did that" you are admitting to being the driver. DO NOT ADMIT TO BEING THE DRIVER. You are responding as the KEEPER so respond all in the third person.
  • stevowmtstevowmt Forumite
    18 Posts
    Okay, thanks all for your help, heres where im at now

    Dear Sir/Madam,
    RE: POPLA XXXXXXXXXXXX

    Without prejudice

    Civil Parking Notice (CPN): XXXXXXXX
    Vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX
    Date of Issue: 30/04/2013
    Company in question: The Car Parking Partnership (CPP)

    On the above date, I (the keeper of the vehicle) was issued with a CPN for parking without a valid permit at Roehampton University. There were no signs anywhere near the car and no signs were observed on entry to the area. The signage was extremely poor, with there most significantly not being any signs at all around where the car was parked.

    I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. Attached to the rejection was the POPLA form and verification code.

    I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.

    1. Lack of signage
    2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges
    3. Inappropriate parking charge
    4. Prompt payment not 40% less
    5. No breach/trespass

    1. Lack of signage

    There is/was categorically no contract between the driver and The Car Parking Partnership (CPP). No signs were observed. There were no large BPA standard signs when the car park was first entered therefore there was no idea of any alleged contract or restrictions.

    There were no signs at all located near where the car was parked.

    I require CPP to provide POPLA with evidence that its signage is compliant with BPA rules upon both entry and where the car in question was parked.

    2. No contract with the site that permits levying charges

    The CPP parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. However, I doubt that CPP has the legal status and overriding right to pursue parking charge notices. I therefore require CPP to supply and POPLA to review:

    • A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
    • A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner has agreed to/been informed about it.
    • A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier.
    • Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car where the car in question was parked.

    Furthermore, I require that the PPC show POPLA proof that they have the right to charge and pursue motorists (including threats of debt recovery and court action).

    3. Inappropriate parking charge

    The demand for a payment of £85 as noted within the Parking Charge is a punitive amount that has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The 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 based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
    you suffer.

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

    I require CPP 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.

    4. Prompt payment discount not 40% less

    In addition, CPP are also not compliant with the early payment discount clause of the BPA code of practice which states:

    19.7 If prompt payment is made, you must offer a reduced
    payment to reflect your reduced costs in collecting the
    charge. The reduction in cost should be by at least 40% of
    the full charge. ‘Prompt payment’ is defined as 14 days from
    the date the driver or the keeper received the notice.


    The discount that CPP offered for payment within 14 days was £60, 40% off of £85 is £51, a big difference to the £60 offered.

    5. No breach/trespass

    If there was no contract, then at most the allegation can only be a civil trespass. This is denied - and indeed the CPP ticket did not mention trespass nor breach, so there is no charge applicable. However, for the avoidance of doubt, if CPP do now try to allege that this is the nature of this 'charge' then the driver would be potentially only be liable for damages owed to the owner/occupier who may have suffered a loss. Since no ‘damage’ occurred in the car park and also given the fact that the car park was not completely full in short time the car was on site, there was in fact no loss at all and this charge is purely a profiteering penalty, out of all proportion.

    With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform CPP to cancel the CPN.

    Yours faithfully,

    XXXXXXXXXXX
  • edited 8 July 2013 at 10:11PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 8 July 2013 at 10:11PM
    I think you do need to go back and review all the links and advice you've had so far as there are points you've been given that aren't there yet. Are you saying that their 'Notice to Driver' (ticket) and the Notice to Keeper (postal letter) identified the 'creditor'? And that it was compliant in every other way too with this checklist, as already linked for you above by Umkomaas:

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

    I would be surprised. In fact I gave you a link to pepipoo forum when you posted your pic of the ticket and in that linked thread the person who has the same ticket has outlined their own POPLA appeal in post #21 on page 2 of the pepipoo thread - and it includes the point that the Notices do fail to identify the creditor and as such they are a nullity; non-compliant notices cannot establish any registered keeper liability in law.

    So you do need to add more to a POPLA appeal but you are getting there!

    I also think that this was very likely to have been a self-ticketing situation (my nephew's girlfriend goes to Roehampton Uni and I think the car park is only ticketed by security staff for the Uni (= 'self ticketing'). There are rules about that in the BPA Code of Practice so Google it and find the relevant section (presumably you have already read it to check for compliance of the signage, if not then read that section too and quote the specific paragraph in your 'lack of signage' point). Anyhoo, I would say that you 'believe this was a case of self-ticketing by University staff who have not been properly briefed & trained as required in the BPA CoP paragraph xx and if CPP allege otherwise they need to show documented proof of that particular employee having received training on the BPA CoP and the effects of Schedule 4 as well as being personally familiar with the maps, signs and contract regarding the parking enforcement in that particular car park. It is not enough that the employee who issued the ticket might be a security guard on site or other employee; they need to have been properly trained as per the specific BPA CoP requirements for a compliant self-ticketing operation, before the incident. If the Operator cannot show this training took place before the incident then they fail to meet the requirements of the BPA CoP in this respect.'

    Finally, have a check through this one I wrote for someone recently about another PPC, did you have all these points (except grace period and ANPR which aren't relevant as far as I can see)?

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=62229369&highlight

    HTH
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides