Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 30th Apr 13, 1:34 PM
    • 18Posts
    • 0Thanks
    stevowmt
    Car Parking Partnership fine
    • #1
    • 30th Apr 13, 1:34 PM
    Car Parking Partnership fine 30th Apr 13 at 1:34 PM
    Hello,

    Im new to this so apologies if I do anything wrong!

    I have today received a parking ticket for £85.00 (or £60.00 if paid within 14 days) for 'parking without a permit'. I have no permit but have been parked there for the last 2 weeks no problem, and there is no sign where I have parked stating I need a permit, but there is one at the main entrance where I drive in.

    The company is called Car Parking Partnership and I was parked at Roehampton University.

    I don't have the money to pay it, and was wondering what you all thought and what my options are. Is this a fine or an invoice? It says it is a Civil Parking Notice.

    Thanks alot!
Page 1
    • edward123
    • By edward123 30th Apr 13, 1:53 PM
    • 568 Posts
    • 554 Thanks
    edward123
    • #2
    • 30th Apr 13, 1:53 PM
    • #2
    • 30th Apr 13, 1:53 PM
    Well, its not a fine as only the council and the police can fine. So its an invoice, a parking charge notice.

    You have three options.

    First, pay it. But don't as there is no need to as its unenforceable as the amount of £85 or £60 amounts to a penalty and no private citizen or company can penalise another, such as you. There are other reasons of course.

    Secondly, ignore it. Will probably work after receiving threats designed to frighten you into paying. When you don't they will go away.

    Thirdly you can take the POPLA route. This means 'appealing'(has to be worded right) to the PPC who will reject it then you REALLY appeal(MUST be worded right) to POPLA and with the right defence(which you will be helped with here) your defence would be accepted and the ticket will be cancelled. This will cost you nothing, the PPC £27 + VAT and end the matter relatively quickly.

    This PPC seems to have 'broken' the BPA AOS code of giving you less the 40% reduction if paid within their stated time. £85 less 40% is £51 not their £60!
    Got a ticket from ParkingEye? Seek advice by clicking here: Private Parking forum on MoneySavingExpert.
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 30th Apr 13, 2:20 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevowmt
    • #3
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:20 PM
    Thanks
    • #3
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:20 PM
    Hello, thanks fpr the reply!

    I think, after what you have said, that I wont pay it, and just ignore it. Do they have any power to send debt collectors? I know its a bit premature to talk about it, but better to check!

    Finally, its intersting what you say about the 40%, however I have checked and they are not a member of the BPA.

    Does this make a difference?

    Thanks again,

    Steve
    • PaulJM
    • By PaulJM 30th Apr 13, 2:24 PM
    • 523 Posts
    • 356 Thanks
    PaulJM
    • #4
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:24 PM
    • #4
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:24 PM
    Don't pay it, have a good look round these threads.

    They will eventually get debt collectors to write to you, but they've got no more right to take your money or stuff than I have. Only court bailiffs can do that, and that's if you don't pay a court.

    They'll pursue you for 6 months and get increasingly threatening, then go away.

    Even if they would evert ake anyone to court, it's not a criminal offence, so they'd have to work out what you've caused them to lose in a small claim court....they can't even really charge you for any legal help they get, and you wouldn't need it, so please, I recommend you get all the info you ned from here, and relax.
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 30th Apr 13, 2:30 PM
    • 9,325 Posts
    • 9,787 Thanks
    pogofish
    • #5
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:30 PM
    • #5
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:30 PM
    They are on the AOS list - Check the entry for "Liberty Printers"

    So you need to do an "appeal" to them, the go the POPLA route once they give you the code. See the stickies on how to do that. If POPLA goes against you, don't worry, its not binding on you, so you can ignore that.

    In order to send debt collectors after you, they need to take you to a proper court, win and you fail to pay the judgement in time. I don't think anyone has ever turned-up evidence of CPP taking anyone to court, never mind the rest, so you can stop worrying!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 30th Apr 13, 2:40 PM
    • 23,033 Posts
    • 36,582 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:40 PM
    • #6
    • 30th Apr 13, 2:40 PM
    Hello, thanks fpr the reply!

    I think, after what you have said, that I wont pay it, and just ignore it. Do they have any power to send debt collectors? I know its a bit premature to talk about it, but better to check!

    Finally, its intersting what you say about the 40%, however I have checked and they are not a member of the BPA.

    Does this make a difference?

    Thanks again,

    Steve
    Originally posted by stevowmt
    Steve

    They are members of BPA Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) - check them out under Liberty Printers (T/A CPP) - just part of the smoke and mirrors endemic in the parking industry (industry - a further misnomer!!).

    As BPA AOS members they can access your details from DVLA on the 'down side', but on the 'up side' they now have to strictly comply with the BPA Code of Practice.

    Well, they've already come unstuck at the first hurdle in terms of the 40% discount for early settlement. I'm sure there'll be plenty more where that's come from. You could do a bit of research in terms of where there may be failings by reading and checking against the following:

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/fighting-parking-tickets/

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

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_CodeofPractice_2012_v2_March2013.pdf

    Check dates of receipt of letters against the BPA CoP timetable - if they don't tie in, then it's pretty much game over for the PPC.

    After your research come back on with the issues you've turned up and there'll be more advice for you from the regular experts.

    First and foremost don't be bounced into paying anything. HTH
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Apr 13, 3:17 PM
    • 70,253 Posts
    • 82,859 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 30th Apr 13, 3:17 PM
    • #7
    • 30th Apr 13, 3:17 PM
    Hello, thanks fpr the reply!

    I think, after what you have said, that I wont pay it, and just ignore it. Do they have any power to send debt collectors? I know its a bit premature to talk about it, but better to check!

    Finally, its intersting what you say about the 40%, however I have checked and they are not a member of the BPA.

    Does this make a difference?

    Thanks again,

    Steve
    Originally posted by stevowmt

    Have a look now at the letters shown in the OLD pre-Oct link in the 'PPC letter chains' sticky thread, for a preview.

    Just to warn you that CPP's debt collector letters are among the worst in terms of intimidating wording and misleading paragraphs about them being about to send the boys round. They can't do that and the letters probably breach the OFT debt collector guidance but they don't care. I think the letters are from PS&P but you will see them on the PPC letter chains thread. They are not bailiffs, we are not talking about personal visits, only letters.

    I should say as well that we actually don't generally recommend the ignore route because some PPCs have surprised us with a few (rare) real small claims papers which have then had to be defended. All too much hassle IMHO and all aimed at ignorers I think. Why ignore when you can crush it?!

    Most regulars here now tend to recommend the POPLA route - so don't discount appealing/challenging the fake PCN when you get the Notice to Keeper (NTK) in the post. And don't think 'well what can I appeal on?' in fact a winning appeal is not worded as you'd think! Check out the POPLA decisions thread, first or second sticky on the thread list. I fully expect CPP would come a cropper if faced with POPLA - bearing in mind how bad their letters are generally - and the decision isn't binding on you so if CPP actually win at POPLA you just revert to ignore mode!

    Don't challenge now, wait to see if a NTK arrives - partly because I don't recall seeing a compliant one yet! Gives you more ammo for winning at POPLA, as most people now do when they get forum help to word that challenge. Keep all letters (and envelopes too if they've been posted later than the date of the letter inside - another point for POPLA).

    It would be good to see how CPP muck up a POPLA challenge response - which costs them money only to see you win and the fake PCN cancelled!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 30-04-2013 at 3:23 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 30th Apr 13, 4:48 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevowmt
    • #8
    • 30th Apr 13, 4:48 PM
    Thanks
    • #8
    • 30th Apr 13, 4:48 PM
    Wow everyone thanks alot for your answers. All very helpful and I didnt expect so many!

    So, as a summary, do I...

    Ignore the notice until I receive a letter from them

    Then, if i receive a letter, I send a letter to the company, then appeal to the POPLA?

    I read through the links posted and the obvious stand out problem on their part is the 40% thing.

    Thanks again Steve
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Apr 13, 6:05 PM
    • 70,253 Posts
    • 82,859 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 30th Apr 13, 6:05 PM
    • #9
    • 30th Apr 13, 6:05 PM
    Wow everyone thanks alot for your answers. All very helpful and I didnt expect so many!

    So, as a summary, do I...

    Ignore the notice until I receive a letter from them

    Then, if i receive a letter, I send a letter to the company, then appeal to the POPLA?

    I read through the links posted and the obvious stand out problem on their part is the 40% thing.

    Thanks again Steve
    Originally posted by stevowmt


    Yes that's the plan, but get help with the POPLA appeal wording as there is more to it than that. See the POPLA decisions thread near the top of the forum and you'll see most of them recently have been won on the fact that PPCs don't like showing POPLA their contracts!

    But the lack of 40% discount is a breach worth citing too...hopefully one of many you will find against the BPA Code of Practice (find it on the BPA website). It's one of the main reasons to wait for the Notice to Keeper, to let them dog their own holes and fail a bit more.

    Doesn't matter too much what you say in your appeal to the PPC but if you want us to see your draft of that email/letter, then do post your draft here when you get the NTK, and post all pages of the NTK here too so we can pick holes in it!

    You do get a lot of replies and help on this forum - it's busy because we've all had fake PCNs ourselves and want to expose this whole industry for the scam it is.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 12th Jun 13, 11:43 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevowmt
    Hello again guys...

    RE the above parking fine.

    I today received a letter in the post from the CPP. (attached is the picture of it)

    Could anyone kindly advise me of the next step(s) i should take.

    Thanks again, Steve

    [IMG]httz://tinypic.com/r/jpvm10/5[/IMG]

    REPLACE THE HTTZ WITH HTTP, thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jun 13, 11:49 PM
    • 70,253 Posts
    • 82,859 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A standard template, does it have any wording on the back?

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=jpvm10&s=5

    Same as shown here, same advice applies:

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80026

    Send a challenge written in the third person, from yourself as the registered keeper but not saying nor implying who was driving. Stroma has posted examples on loads of threads of a simple version 'first challenge'.

    Read the 'POPLA decisions' thread (top of forum) and the Parking Prankster's blog linked there. So far he has got lots of POPLA appeals in and has won both decided so far - but you MUST read what he used as his first appeals in the two cases so far!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 13th Jun 13, 11:50 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevowmt
    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-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 13, 12:58 PM
    • 70,253 Posts
    • 82,859 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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 UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 1st Jul 13, 5:35 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevowmt
    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
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jul 13, 5:51 PM
    • 70,253 Posts
    • 82,859 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-03-2016 at 4:39 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 8th Jul 13, 9:37 AM
    • 10,818 Posts
    • 10,274 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    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
    Originally posted by stevowmt
    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.
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 8th Jul 13, 10:37 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevowmt
    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 Dad
    • By Guys Dad 8th Jul 13, 10:50 AM
    • 10,818 Posts
    • 10,274 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    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.
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 8th Jul 13, 11:03 AM
    • 2,281 Posts
    • 3,056 Thanks
    nigelbb
    FFS 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.
    Last edited by nigelbb; 08-07-2013 at 11:06 AM.
    • stevowmt
    • By stevowmt 8th Jul 13, 12:16 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevowmt
    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
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,046Posts Today

7,208Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin