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.

Parking charge notice for 17 seconds....help needed

2

Replies

  • 1147peter1147peter Forumite
    6 Posts
    many thanks do you think this letter covers my appeal??

    Dear POPLA
    Address

    My Details
    PCN No.
    Issued.
    Reg.
    Todays Date

    I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.

    1) The driver entered the car park at 19:04 in the evening. The driver was turning around and then driving out. There was never any intention to park.


    2) The Grace period stated in the rejection of appeal letter from the PCC states one minute. Park Direct UK state their photographic evidence shows I parked in excess of this. The copies of the photos they provided are enclosed. They show my car in one position at 19:04:14 after turning around. They then show my car in a different position at 19:04:29 and again as leaving at 19:05:04. This isn’t a one minute period and does not allow any driver sufficient grace period to read the signs and / or exit the car park. In the original PCN only two photos were provided at 19:04:14 then 19:04:29, the third photo was provided in my rejection of appeal letter from Park Direct UK.
    The driver of the vehicle couldn’t leave directly due to a car entering the car park which is shown in the first picture, then traffic on the road the driver was emerging onto which is shown in the second photo. This is how the 50 seconds were spent

    3) The vehicle was not improperly parked. The vehicle was never left unattended by the driver or parked at any stage within the 50 second timeframe and even the photos show it in different positions. The picture taken at 19:04:29 and 19:05:04 actually show the vehicle waiting to leave the car park area and the front of the vehicle is on the public highway, which Park Direct LTD have no power to enforce stopping on. The vehicle was never at any stage parked and was waiting for traffic to clear to emerge onto the Public Highway

    4) The Signage does not comply with BPA requlations specifically regarding the sign regarding ANPR technology used in this car park.(see photo) position at high level and damaged not position at the entrance to the site.

    4) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner for the driver turning my vehicle around in 50 seconds. In the appeal Park Direct UK did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. I did ask for a full breakdown of their costs which wasn’t provided. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Park Direct UK has suffered as a result of the car being turned around at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being turned around at the car park.

    5) Proprietary Interest
    The driver does not believe that Park Direct UK has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Park Direct”s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
    The driver believes 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 Park Direct UK. The driver expects Park Direct to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.


    I enclose my letter to Park Direct in appeal of the PCN and also enclose a copy of the original PCN and rejection letter which doesn’t cover all the points raised in my appeal.
  • edited 29 May 2014 at 6:51PM
    Dee140157Dee140157 Forumite
    2.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker Mortgage-free Glee!
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 29 May 2014 at 6:51PM
    I would rephrase some of these
    1) the driver entered the car park at 19.04 and left at 19.05 without parking the car.
    2) Park Direct have broken the BPA code of practice section 13 by not allowing a sufficient grace period. I contend that 1 minute is not a sufficient grace period to adequately enter car park, read signage, make decison to leave and do so.
    3) Not sure about this one, someone else may help here but think ok.
    4)ok
    5)ok
    6) add something about the challenging accuracy of ANPR system.

    I'm not sure you need to enclose your rejection letter.

    Remember points 4 to 6 are likely to be the ones that win the appeal, not points 1 to 3 as breaches of the BPA code of conduct etc are not legally valid arguments. The others are.
    Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.
  • edited 29 May 2014 at 10:42PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    101.9K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 29 May 2014 at 10:42PM
    You have said you are the registered keeper so it would read better to say here 'I do not believe' because it's not the driver who is appealing is it?! And you've left 'Parking Eye' in by mistake so double check the entire wording for such slips!


    5) Proprietary Interest
    I do not believe that Park Direct UK has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Park Direct”s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
    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 Park Direct UK. The driver expects Park Direct to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

    And you don't need to attach any evidence - simpler not to bother as the PPC have to send it, so get rid of:
    'I enclose my letter to Park Direct in appeal of the PCN and also enclose a copy of the original PCN and rejection letter which doesn’t cover all the points raised in my appeal.'


    *********************
    Here's one I wrote for someone re ParkDirect, you could nick stuff from here:

    1. No contract with Driver - no parking event occurred and no signs were seen/read
    This was late afternoon and the driver merely turned the car around and left within a minute and saw no signs. There was no intention to park and no agreement to pay £100 for the privilege of doing a 3 point turn! Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear & so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it & agreed. This charge is spurious and the signage wording which I have subsequently checked is unclear & dresses up an obvious deterrent (really a penalty) as a 'contractual' fee. It is not; see point 4.

    2. NTK - no 'keeper liability'.
    The NTK fails to identify the 'creditor' and fails to state a 'period of parking' (there was no parking!) so it does not meet the requirements of POFA 2012.
    It is not for me to guess who the creditor is. It could be 'ParkDirectUK 'or 'ParkDirectUK Ltd' (both legal names are on the NTK), or alternatively the creditor could be their client, or the landowner, or another party.

    There is no 'keeper liability' from a fundamentally flawed NTK and POFA 2012 only applies to parking events. This was not a parking event at all, it was an example of ParkDirect's well documented (in the national press) sharp practice in taking photos of any vehicle which drives through/turns around near their operative with her mobile phone camera, then sending out speculative demands.

    3. No proprietary interest in this land
    I put ParkDirect UK Ltd to strict proof of their specific BPA CoP-compliant contract wording. If the client is a managing agent, I put this Operator to strict proof that the actual landholder authorised the managing agent to grant them 'landholder rights to sue in their own name'. I am not merely saying that I think this Operator has no authority to issue PCNs -- anyone could send a letter out - I am stating that this Operator's contract does not grant them any legal standing to enforce/pursue the matter themselves in the courts. A site agreement or witness statement will not suffice because that will not be strict proof to rebut my assertion that ParkDirectUK have no contract which assigns rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right.

    4. The NTK states the charge is for 'breach' so must prove it is a GPEOL.
    This is really about breach of contract, so loss must be shown or the charge is unenforceable. The
    Notice to Keeper letter refers to 'breach of contract' so the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss - and I contend this charge certainly is not based on any such calculation.

    This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss. The parking charge must be an estimate of likely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentially enforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence of a vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to pay a tariff) this loss will be obvious. An initial loss is fundamental to a parking charge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge notice cannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this 'turning around' event which was not even parking!

    The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the same business overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all. Therefore, the sum they are seeking is not representative of any genuine loss incurred by either the landowner or the operator, flowing from a 3 point turn. There was no parking event and this sort of sharp practice should be reported to the BPA by POPLA as the evidence is clear the car was photographed moving, for less than one minute.

    5. Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty
    The sign & the NTK are unclear, ambiguous & contradictory. On the NTK the sum is extremely hard to find, hidden in small print on the back! It is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms' and this is repeated in the rejection. Yet the sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a time-limited stay, a payment mechanism and a VAT invoice. There is none. This is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise the interpretation that favours the consumer applies.

    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
    37.8K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    also this part cannot be correct either
    2) The Grace period stated in the rejection of appeal letter from the PCC states one minute.

    PCC makes no sense at all , its Park Direct if I read the info correctly , so PCC is not a suitable word or acronym , I suspect you meant PPC which again is not suitable for popla
    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
  • The_DeepThe_Deep Forumite
    16.8K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    This also seems a matter which may be of concern to Trading Standards and the local papers.s
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • The_Slithy_ToveThe_Slithy_Tove Forumite
    3.9K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Redx wrote: »
    I believe the BPA would state that 5 to 10 minutes is deemed reasonable to comply or leave, am sure a judge would say so too , so complain to the BPA about these jokers and enclose copies of the paperwork

    also complain to the landowner too , but get the popla appeal done first
    A complaint should also be submitted to the DVLA that your details were claimed unlawfully. Park Direct in no way had "justifiable cause" to your details as you were not by ANY definition "parked". They are in breach of their KADOE contract with the DVLA.
  • Guys_DadGuys_Dad Forumite
    11K Posts
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I am with the OP 100% in going to POPLA. As I am with almost all PPC cases.

    However, some of the comments may not be relevant.

    1. OP says they went to drop off money to a friend. Surely that would have necessitated parking for a bit? Was friend standing out waiting for money or did OP leave the car? And I would find it hard to believe that no conversation between them arose.

    2. 17 seconds - that is only the time span of the two pictures. This doesn't mean OP was only there for 17 seconds.

    So unless OP can confirm these 2 points, complaint to the DVLA may be unwise.

    When you can easily win with standard POPLA appeals, no need to egg the pudding.
  • nigelbbnigelbb Forumite
    3.6K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭
    Setting down & picking up is not parking & for example is specifically allowed on the public road where there are double yellow lines & waiting is forbidden.
  • DublindelDublindel Forumite
    406 Posts
    ✭✭
    50 seconds is a joke. Grace period is there to agree to park or reject and leave. 8 minutes is about the average. I think it was set at that level to penalise you personally but was miscalculated. If someone parked for 4 minutes in the same car park then the grace period would be 3 minutes. The grace period is not on the terms and conditions but is a requirement. Guaranteed win at POPLA
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    35.1K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Please put this into a new thread of your own; you will get bespoke advice and not get (on this thread) advice that neither you nor the Original Poster will necessarily know as to whom it is directed.

    Just copy and paste the above, then once it's showing as a new thread, delete your post above (via the 'Edit' and 'Go Advanced' buttons).

    Help on the way then. :)
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides