Forum Home» Motoring» Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

Highview PCN Allowed / (won) Appeal Start to Finish

New Post Advanced Search

Highview PCN Allowed / (won) Appeal Start to Finish

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
24 replies 16.1K views
bob_ewingbob_ewing Forumite
1 posts
edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
This is the chronological account of my PCN case with Highview Parking for alleged parking in Waterfields Retails Park Watford and my successful POPLA appeal.

15/10/2013 (A few days after)
"Charge Notice" Received in the post with images of alleged entry and exit to and from retail park.

07/11/2013
Sent initial appeal to Highview as follows

"To Highview Parking
I am writing to you in regards to Charge Notice XXXX Reg. XXXX XXX
This charge is punitive. Please cancel the charge forthwith or refer the matter to POPLA and provide me with the POPLA code in doing so.
From
<my name>"

07/11/2013 (same day)
Repsonse from Highview
"Dear Sir,
Thank you for your correspondence concerning your Charge Notice.
This PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operators Scheme.
We are fully aware that this is a standard text, with no relation to any specific circumstances which might have represented valid mitigation against the issue of this charge.
The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so.
In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected.
We can confirm that we will hold the charge at the current rate for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence, after which the full amount will be due.
Yours faithfully,
Highview Parking Limited

<POPLA code and standard text was appended>

02/12/2013
Submitted Popla Appeal as follows
"Dear Popla

Appeal Re: Highview parking Charge Notice Ref. No.XXXX - Waterfields Retail Park Vehicle Reg. XXXX XXX. POPLA reference code XXXX.

On the 15/10/2013, Highview issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in Waterfields Car Park for 3 hour 21 minutes.

This appeal is on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge, and the 'parking charge' exceeds the appropriate amount.

My Appeal follows:

NO GENUINE PRE ESTIMATE OF LOSS
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Highview Parking Ltd and is punitive, thereby contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Highview Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss.

Waterields is a free car park, therefore the parking charges have been paid in full and there is no loss to the owner.

Highview sent me the following in response to my first appeal to them: "The amount of the charge is well within BPA guidelines, and reflects the cost to our clients, both in terms of congestion caused at this site by drivers abusing the parking restrictions, and our fees for enforcing these restrictions, while installing and maintaining the necessary equipment to do so."

I require Highview parking to submit a full breakdown of their losses due to the alleged parking allegation, and this cannot include any of the above or the POPLA fee. These are not actual losses following the alleged breach, these are business running costs.

NOTICE TO KEEPER NON COMPLAINT
There is non-compliance with the wording of the Notice to Keeper. It is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) in that it does not identify the creditor. The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it. This would require words to the effect of "The creditor is …".

The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. These, they have failed to do and thus have have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.

In this case keeper liability has been lost due as it fails to clarify what the contravention is, nor who the creditor is and so it fails to meet the requirements for a Notice to Keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise - I therefore require that Highview Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier which, to be compliant with the BPA code of Practice, must grant Highview authority to form contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own right in the courts. I believe Highview only have an agency agreement with the landowner which does not meet the standards in the BPA CoP.

EVIDENCE OF COMPLIENCE - ANPR REQUIREMENTS - PART 21 OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
The BPA code of practice contains the following:

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
• 21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.

• 21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you
should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.

• 21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your
car parks in good working order. You need to make sure
the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and
cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use
to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our
compliance team or our agents.

• 21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information
Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and
ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.

• 21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability
provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have
not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the
driver in the car park where the parking event took
place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict
requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule
(in particular paragraph 9).

I have no evidence that Highview have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets. I hereby request that this evidence is provided.

This concludes my appeal.

<my name>

03/12/2013
Acknowledgement letter received from POPLA with date that the appeal will be heard.

30/12/2013
"Evidence Pack" received from POPLA. Contained some choice Diatribe from Highview. This is their case summary -

"<my name> appealed this charge with an extremely brief email in which he stated that the charge was punitive, and demanded that we either cancel it or provide a POPLA code.
We responded by pointing out that we were full (sic) aware that he had forwarded a copy of standard text, rather than make any attempt to describe any mitigating circumstances particular to his case that might represent grounds for us to reconsider it. We confirmed that the amount of the charge was well within British Parking Association guidelines, and rejected his representations accordingly.
<my name> has since appealed to POPLA with a significantly more substantial, detailed appeal which we would note is nevertheless a further template letter. In doing so, he is following advice circulated on the internet forums dedicated to undermining ours and POPLA's appeal procedures, which encourage appellants to send derisory appeals to acquire a code, and then send more exhaustive, but equally generic appeals to POPLA. We would argue that this is an entirely vexatious attempt to subvert the appeals process, and that <my name> has no valid grounds for appeals. He has neglected to set out any genuine mitigation that have given us cause to reconsider this charge, and has instead resorted to sending a generic objection that would apply equally to all charges that we issue if it was given any credence in this case. By using this site, he entered into a contract to either adhere to the prominently advertised time limit or pay the stipulated charge, which we are chosing to uphold."

24/01/2014
Appeal decision received - Allowed
Extract below
"The appellant has made a number of submissions, however, I will only elaborate on the one submission that I am allowing this appeal on, namely that the parking charge amount is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The burden is on the operator to prove that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. However, the operator has failed to establish a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore I am not satisfied that the operator has discharged the burden.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."

Summary And Acknowledgements.
First the acknowledgements. A massive thanks to Coupon-mad and Lou30. I followed Coupon's advice and used Lou30's appeal as a very similar basis to my own.

In summary, I would say that the day I got the ticket I was very angry and unsure what to do (I knew I would not pay it) but thanks to the power of communities such as these, it gave me the empowerment to fight back against these rackets which I hope will be made illegal.

B.
«13

Replies

  • Thanks for updating us.

    I see high view are no longer spurred Into doing anything
    Proud to be a member of the Anti Enforcement Hobbyist Gang.:D:T
  • The_Slithy_ToveThe_Slithy_Tove Forumite
    3.9K posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    An excellent summary. See how easy it really is, newbies? It matters not the circumstances around the parking event at all. Though a slightly longer initial appeal will help get a POPLA code from some of the PPCs.
  • trisontanatrisontana Forumite
    9.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    " In doing so, he is following advice circulated on the internet forums dedicated to undermining ours and POPLA's appeal procedures, which encourage appellants to send derisory appeals to acquire a code, and then send more exhaustive, but equally generic appeals to POPLA. We would argue that this is an entirely vexatious attempt to subvert the appeals process, and that <my name> has no valid grounds for appeals."

    They don't like it up them , do they?

    I had to smile when the talked about "mitigating circumstances", when we all know that POPLA don't do mitigating circumstance.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • peter_the_piperpeter_the_piper Forumite
    30K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm trying to work out what all that means, the only thing I can get is "
    Whiney voice., If they had told us they knew it was all bluff by properly appealing we would not have wasted £32"
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
  • edited 24 January 2014 at 6:08PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad Forumite
    86.8K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 24 January 2014 at 6:08PM
    The thing is they say it's 'vexatious' to do this sort of soft first appeal and then a winning POPLA appeal, and yet with Council PCNs that is exactly what almost everyone who wins at PATAS and TPT does. It is the normal way of appeals of this nature, that the second stage would be a stronger attempt to win after a rejection letter, with more research having been carried out (of course).

    They really do NOT like this do they?! Hahahahahahahahaha, toys flying out of the pram because they were sussed! Yet it is THEIR FAULT if their business model is neither compliant nor enforceable in contract law.

    Well done to the OP in finding the right advice in good time, and then winning!
    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
  • RedxRedx Forumite
    29.4K posts
    10,000 Posts Sixth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    its also "vexatious" for them to keep including their costs of running a business, or complaining if you had written you were bitten by radioactive spiders , or were abducted by aliens :)

    perhaps if they put their business in order and abided by the BPA rules and also applied some common sense they might get a fairer crack of the whip, but I doubt it will happen

    if the loss to the landowner is nil, its pointless costing themselves over £32 in each disputed case

    Excel complained about my relative changing his popla appeal compared to his soft appeal, there was a good reason for that , I got involved before his popla appeal!! ;)
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
  • edited 24 January 2014 at 6:30PM
    fisherjimfisherjim Forumite
    4.3K posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 24 January 2014 at 6:30PM
    'He has neglected to set out any genuine mitigation that have given us cause to reconsider this charge.'

    Since when did a PPC actually cancel on mitigation?

    'we would note is nevertheless a further template letter'

    Oh they mean like PPC's that send out template letters all the time.Highview really are stupid, they are the PPC of choice at a Tesco near me, their signage is pathetic and virtually non existent, and the one sign warning you of ANPR at the entrance is totally hidden behind the Tesco sign post.
  • trisontanatrisontana Forumite
    9.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    I heard the same argument from Rachel at Aldi's "parking department. She came out with the sob story of the reason that PE turn down many appeals is because they are not in possesion of the "full facts" when somebody just makes a soft appeal, thus hoping to get a POPLA code. She said that if they were in possession of those "facts" the PE would allow more appeals (allegedly) . And it's all the fault of various parking forums. . Hogwash of course.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
  • I see no problem here despite Highviews moaning.

    1. Bob appealed to Highview that the charge was punitive (Rejected)

    2. Bob appealed to POPLA that the charge was punitive (Allowed)
  • bob_ewing wrote: »
    ... resorted to sending a generic objection that would apply equally to all charges that we issue if it was given any credence in this case.

    So an admission that any and all of their pcn's are flawed and not credible. Tantamount to saying that if this appeal is allowed then the game's up for parking companies. How far does it have to go for pcn's to be deemed illegal demands for money? I suppose while some courts agree with them, they can argue they are legitimate.
This discussion has been closed.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support