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
    • muziksmig
    • By muziksmig 8th May 18, 2:20 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 0Thanks
    muziksmig
    POPLA selection
    • #1
    • 8th May 18, 2:20 PM
    POPLA selection 8th May 18 at 2:20 PM
    Hi all,
    I'm in the throes of appealing via POPLA after ECP turned down my direct appeal to them , not fully sure I'm doing it right or appealing on the right issues but one thing was the check box on the POPLA website asks "Are you appealing on behalf of someone else or yourself? "Does this not intimate who the driver is as if you select to appeal on behalf of someone else the name box changes to motorist so in effect you are naming the driver? or am i being a bit paranoid?
    Also one of my arguments is the fact that payment for a ticket was attempted ( payment by card only) and the machine would not accept the card suggesting a fault with the machine. I have not been able to find any other mention of these circumstances .any help appreciated!
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th May 18, 2:29 PM
    • 9,214 Posts
    • 9,397 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 8th May 18, 2:29 PM
    • #2
    • 8th May 18, 2:29 PM
    Are you the keeper of the vehicle?

    If so, appeal as the keeper.

    There is never any need to appeal on behalf of someone else - unless of course you can explain why that is necessary.

    Have you written your PoPLA appeal?
    Feel free to post it here for appraisal if you wish, but that's entirely your choice.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th May 18, 3:56 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,384 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 8th May 18, 3:56 PM
    • #3
    • 8th May 18, 3:56 PM
    "Are you appealing on behalf of someone else? "
    The answer to that is ALWAYS no. The person who got the POPLA code, is appealing, so it's not on behalf of anyone.

    Also one of my arguments is the fact that payment for a ticket was attempted (payment by card only) and the machine would not accept the card suggesting a fault with the machine. I have not been able to find any other mention of these circumstances .any help appreciated!
    You will have to write that one yourself, being careful to use the third person 'the driver attempted'.

    And don't forget the ANPR ICO surveillance camera new appeal point, found by searching the forum. IMHO, all ANPR using PPCs breach the BPA CoP and ICO CoP, at the moment.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-05-2018 at 3:59 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • muziksmig
    • By muziksmig 9th May 18, 11:33 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    muziksmig
    • #4
    • 9th May 18, 11:33 AM
    • #4
    • 9th May 18, 11:33 AM
    Many thanks all for your input . So to clarify, if I draft a POPLA appeal would you advise I take the standpoint that firstly, the driver was unable to make a payment for ticket due to faulted machine then use the argument for signage, third, the ANPR camera and finally ( but reading the wording it looks correct) the POFA 12 stance ? I was having difficulty pulling up the POPLA templates after much searching yesterday but I am back on the hunt for justice today by God!!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th May 18, 11:37 AM
    • 3,426 Posts
    • 4,257 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 9th May 18, 11:37 AM
    • #5
    • 9th May 18, 11:37 AM
    POFA is first, becasue the keeper appellant has no liability where they fail to meet the strict requirements of pOFA to hold the keeper liable.
    • muziksmig
    • By muziksmig 9th May 18, 11:55 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    muziksmig
    • #6
    • 9th May 18, 11:55 AM
    • #6
    • 9th May 18, 11:55 AM
    Also , I dont know if this would have any bearing on things , if the driver never left the vehicle in the time spent parked other than to try and purchase a ticket and the response from the company details that leaving the vehicle as part of the contract agreement does that make the contract void?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th May 18, 12:26 PM
    • 9,214 Posts
    • 9,397 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #7
    • 9th May 18, 12:26 PM
    • #7
    • 9th May 18, 12:26 PM
    Also , I dont know if this would have any bearing on things , if the driver never left the vehicle in the time spent parked other than to try and purchase a ticket and the response from the company details that leaving the vehicle as part of the contract agreement does that make the contract void?
    Originally posted by muziksmig
    Not relevant.
    .
    • muziksmig
    • By muziksmig 15th May 18, 7:34 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    muziksmig
    • #8
    • 15th May 18, 7:34 PM
    POPLA appeal proof reading
    • #8
    • 15th May 18, 7:34 PM
    Hi all again ,
    Finally managed to draft a POPLA appeal culled from various posts and sources and wondered if you good people could point me in the right direction as to its worthiness of uploading.

    Many thanks in advance: Here goes .....

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxxxx and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge number xxxxxxxx using POPLA appeal code xxxxxxxxxx. I am neither admitting liability or making admission of being the driver .My appeal was refused by Euro Car Parking because I had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the terms and conditions stipulated on the signage were not broken and there was a failure on the drivers part to make payment for permission to park .However ,at the time of alleged contravention the driver attempted to make payment but was unable to do so due to a fault on the machine.
    I am appealing this penalty on the grounds stated below, and I respectfully ask that all points are taken into consideration. Please note the PPC in question, Euro Car Parks, shall hereby be referred to as ECP.

    1. Signage
    2. No contract with the Landowner
    3. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
    4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    5. Inability to make payment due to machine fault.
    1/ Signage
    The alleged breach took place at night time and any signs were not adequately lighted to be seen clearly while driving (and indeed were not seen by the driver).
    The BPA Code of Practice states: 18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are. (Please note that due to ECP high positioning of the signage they were hard to see during the night.) 18.3 Specific parking terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving.” There was no contract between the driver and ECP as the driver did not see any contractual information on any of the signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. Had the driver been made aware that ECP would charge £100 if even when payment was attempted but unable to be made due to machine fault the driver would have ensured the vehicle left the Parking area .

    2/ No contract with the Landowner
    ECP do not own the land and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising.
    ECP has also not provided any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver or keeper. They do not own nor have any proprietary or agency rights or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.
    ECP must provide the POPLA Adjudicator with documentary evidence in the form of a copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier. Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to specifically grant ECP the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between ECP and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.

    3/ Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
    In their response ECP address this issue, stating a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss but do not offer an explanation as to how. A car that was parked in a practically empty car park late at night for 43 minutes when most shops/bars and restaurants in the vicinity were closed.
    The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that: "Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver." Considering the alleged 43 minute overstay I contest that £100 is not a reasonable or genuine pre-estimate of loss. The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included. It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.
    In addition, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer contracts regulations 1999
    Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083
    which reads:-

    “Unfair Terms”
    5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

    (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

    (3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

    (4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

    (5) Schedule 2 to these Regulations contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair.”

    Section 4 of the Unfair Contract terms Act 1977 should apply which states:-


    “4 Unreasonable indemnity clauses”



    (1) A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.

    (2) This section applies whether the liability in question:

    (a) is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred by him vicariously;

    (b) is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else.”


    Clearly, per the Act, £100 for parking for 43 minutes is not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

    4/ ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
    ECP is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require ECP to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.



    5/ Inability to make payment due to machine fault.
    An attempt to make payment was made by the driver at the time of alleged contravention. The payment machine which was card only and the only one within the car park refused to accept the payment card and so to make payment was not possible.

    With all this in mind, I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ECP to cancel the PCN.

    Yours sincerely,
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th May 18, 7:50 PM
    • 19,392 Posts
    • 30,635 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 15th May 18, 7:50 PM
    • #9
    • 15th May 18, 7:50 PM
    Have you another thread about this - there is no context here.

    Appeal point #3 - GPEOL - has been dead in the water for approaching 3 years, ditch it.

    What about keeper liability?

    What about the new section, recently added to to the forum about ANPR compliance with ICO requirements? Search the forum for ICO Code ANPR surveillance camera POPLA to find recent ones which include that specific ANPR issue.

    If you have another thread about this issue, PM Crabman or soolin (Board Guides) and ask them to merge please. You can find links to them at the foot of the thread index list, in the bottom r/h corner.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • muziksmig
    • By muziksmig 15th May 18, 9:18 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    muziksmig
    apologies all .will attach to previous post but thanks for the info
    • Crabman
    • By Crabman 18th May 18, 10:03 AM
    • 9,698 Posts
    • 7,132 Thanks
    Crabman
    Threads have been merged
    I'm a Board Guide on the Savings & Investments, ISAs & Tax-free Savings, Public Transport & Cycling, Motoring and Parking Fines, Tickets & Parking Boards. I volunteer to help get your forum questions answered and keep the forum running smoothly. Board Guides are not moderators & don't read every post. If you spot a contentious or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com (it's not part of my role to deal with this). Views are mine and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.com

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th May 18, 4:59 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,384 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    apologies all .will attach to previous post but thanks for the info
    Originally posted by muziksmig
    Show us the resulting POPLA appeal draft.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th May 18, 5:11 PM
    • 61,501 Posts
    • 74,384 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    apologies all .will attach to previous post but thanks for the info
    Originally posted by muziksmig
    Show us the resulting POPLA appeal draft.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

1,541Posts Today

8,212Users online

Martin's Twitter