Car Parking Partnership fine

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