Another Excel / Peel Centre casualty

I am planning to work on it a bit more, but would appreciate some feedback in the meantime. How is this as a first draft?

Dear POPLA Assessor

Verification code:
Vehicle registration:
PCN:
PPC: Excel Parking Services Ltd.
Alleged contravention date and time:
Date of PCN:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am writing to appeal against recent parking charges issued to me by Excel Parking Services Ltd for allegedly parking without displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket. My appeal to the PPC was rejected in a letter dated 25 November 2013. I am appealing against the charges on the following grounds:

1. Signage
2. Lack of contract
3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. ANPR accuracy


1. Signage

On the night in question, my car was driven to the Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet at the Peel Centre retail park in Stockport. Apart from the KFC, no other stores in the vicinity were open and the carpark itself was dark and unoccupied. Until recently parking at this location was free in the evenings and because the signs were so poorly lit, there was no clear indication that parking charges were in force.

Excel Parking Services claims that their ‘signs are highly prominent and meet the requirements set by the British Parking Association guidelines’. I dispute this claim. At night, and in darkness, the signs are barely noticeable and the print impossible to read.

2. Lack of contract

I believe that Excel Parking Services has no contract with the land owner of the Peel Centre that gives them any authority to impose or issue these punitive charges. If they dispute this, I require them to produce a certified copy of the contract with the landowner which must be BPA CoP complaint. The contract must be dated before my alleged contravention and indicate that Excel Parking Services are authorised to form contracts with drivers and issue charges in their own name.

3. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Furthermore, I maintain that the charge of £100 is excessive and punitive and bears no reflection on the loss that would have been incurred by the landowner. The BPA Code of Practice states that the charge must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Considering the stores were mostly closed on the day and there were hardly any cars in the carpark at the time in question, I challenge Excel Parking Services to provide a detailed breakdown as to how the amount of £100 was arrived at. Costs of running the business may not be included in the pre-estimate of loss.

4. ANPR accuracy

My car was allegedly captured entering and leaving the carpark ANPR cameras. Private parking companies are required by the BPA to ensure that ANPR equipment is in working order. Given the darkness of the night, wholly reflected in the images sent to me along with the PCN, and that their entire case rests on these two very dark, almost black, images, I require Excel Parking Services present records indicating when the cameras were checked and maintained to ensure the accuracy of the images.

On these grounds, I respectfully request that these charges be cancelled.

Yours, etc.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I strongly suggest you read other Peel Centre threads by searching the forum, as I remember writing a fairly recent POPLA appeal about someone who parked in the KFC section. And the signage there is actually separate I think and as you CAN park at the KFC for 15 mins it's not a P&D area, so it could be argued that the entrance signs only apply to the P&D part of the car park. I recall working that argument into a POPLA appeal for someone a month or two ago, easily found by searching the forum for 'Peel' or 'KFC'.

Okay, I'll give it another go later today. Thanks.

I have read the KFC/Peel threads and revised my POPLA appeal. I've tried not to cut and paste but to write my account in my own words. I hope this version looks/sounds better.

===
Dear POPLA Assessor

Verification code:
Vehicle registration:
PCN:
PPC: Excel Parking Services Ltd.
Alleged contravention date and time:
Date of PCN:

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am writing to appeal against recent parking charges issued to me by Excel Parking Services Ltd for allegedly parking without displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket. My appeal to the PPC was rejected in a letter dated 25 November 2013. I am appealing against the charges on the following grounds:

Signage
ANPR accuracy
Lack of contract
Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss


On the night in question, my car was driven to the Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet at the Peel Centre retail park in Stockport. The KFC outlet has dedicated bays with signs indicating that customers were allowed to park for 15 minutes. There were no signs indicating that KFC customers are liable for payment charges from the point of entry into the main Peel carpark, which is the only entrance available to get to the KFC. There were also no signs indicating that ANPR technology would be used to capture this entry and applied to KFC customers as soon as they entered to make their way to the KFC, parked their cars in the allocated bays, order their food, wait for it to arrive and then get back into their cars to drive out of the main carpark and be captured by the cameras again. The use of ANPR technology in this manner amounts to unfair entrapment.

The use of ANPR cameras by private parking companies are required by the BPA to ensure that ANPR equipment is in working order. Given the darkness of the night, wholly reflected in the images sent to me along with the PCN, and that their entire case rests on these two very dark, almost black, images, I require Excel Parking Services present records indicating when the cameras were checked and maintained to ensure the accuracy of the images.

In addition, on the night and period in question, apart from the KFC, no other stores in the vicinity were open and the main carpark itself was dark and unoccupied. Until recently parking at this location was free in the evenings and because the signs were so poorly lit, there was no clear indication that parking charges were in force from the point of entry into the main carpark, even if drivers were not intending to use the main carpark and heading straight for the KFC. Excel Parking Services has not provided proof that my car was parked in the main carpark and not within the KFC bays.

Excel Parking Services claims that their ‘signs are highly prominent and meet the requirements set by the British Parking Association guidelines’. I dispute this claim. At night, and in darkness, the signs are barely noticeable and the print impossible to read. And in any case, nothing in print or the terms and conditions applies to customers using the allocated bays at the KFC.

To this degree, the driver cannot be said to have breached any contract with Excel Parking Services if there was no intention to park in the main carpark supposedly managed by Excel Parking Services. There cannot be an enforceable contract if there is a non-Pay-&-Display area within a Pay-&-Display carpark where differing terms and conditions apply, and where the parking company has not erected signs with full terms and conditions distinguishing the two separate areas. In my case, the alleged contravention of ‘parking without a ticket/permit’ simply did not occur.

Furthermore, I maintain that the charge of £100 is excessive and punitive and bears no reflection on the loss that might have been incurred by the landowner, if at all. The BPA Code of Practice states that the charge must be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Considering the stores were mostly closed on the day and there were hardly any cars in the carpark at the time in question, I challenge Excel Parking Services to provide a detailed breakdown as to how the amount of £100 was arrived at. Costs of running the business may not be included in the pre-estimate of loss.

On these grounds, I respectfully request that these charges be cancelled and the appeal allowed.

Yours, etc.

OK, back to the drawing board. I'll give it another go tonight. Thanks again.