Peel centre parking fine - £60

haha Thanks again.
ill be sure to note this down haha.
i owe you lot a drink after all this :')
ill keep you guys posted with everything I'm doing and whats going on.
Thanks!!!!

dont worry i will

i have drafted a letter already for POPLA. some is copied and pasted so dont worry! i already know some need to be reworded.


Dear POPLA adjudicator,

RE: Excel Parking PCN number xxxxxxxx POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx

I'm writing this to appeal a charge sent to me by Excel. This occurred after my vehicle entered and exited a car park in Stockport Peel Center, on xx/xx/xx. I was parked her for 51 Mins, between the hours of 8:26pm - 9:17pm. Excel claim that the vehicle's driver owes them £100 (reduced to £60 if early payment is made) for not displaying a Pay and Display ticket.
It was to my understanding that it was free to park here between the hours of 8pm till 8am. I have parked here before knowing full well it has been free during these hours. As I drove into the car park I noticed a sign which does not state that any times have changed. As all shops were closed and only a few cars were parked I was still under the influence the car park was free after 8pm. I went into a local restaurant situated on site and was told, by a member of staff, the car park is in fact free after 8pm.
10 days later I received a charge for £60/£100 (£60 if played promptly). I was caught driving in and out by a ANPR camera.

I now want to set out why I'd like you to cancel this charge.

'Excel's legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices'

Firstly I would like to point out that, in their correspondence with me, Excel haven't produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle using the car park. Nor that they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land in Stockport peel center.

Accordingly, I kindly ask you to check whether or not Excel have provided an up-to date, signed copy of the contract or agreement with the landowner – one which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts. I'd require that this is an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists.

'Trespass'

If there was no contract, then at most I was guilty of a civil trespass. If this was the case, I would be liable to damages. Given that I did no damage to the car park and furthermore that the car park was not full when I parked or when I left. It is suggested that there was therefore no loss at all.

'Unlawful Penalty Charge'

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .


'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 time my car was parked there. The charge cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. In the appeal Excel did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Excel has suffered as a result of the car being parked 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 parked at that car park.

It was found in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Mr R Ibbotson (16th May 2012) that general business costs cannot constitute a loss and also has been held to be the case in a number of very recent compelling and comparable decisions against Excel, when similar cases have been considered by POPLA.

'Unclear And Non-Complaint Signage'

Due to their high position, bright colours, distracting pictograms and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. At no point was I sufficiently informed by any signs that the pay and display duration period had changed.

'ANPR Section Of The BPA Code Of Practice'

I further contend that Excel have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

so i stayed up last night editing and researching the appeal. please take time to read it. I just edited the last post so it should be there. spent the night of from my uni work haha ill catch up at some point this week.
if you could give me some advice I would be grateful ill put stuff into my own words when i get chance. hopefully it wont need too much editing but I imagine it will :')
thanks so much for your help guys. its much appreciated. ill thank your comments

haha cheers
I'll change it when I'm home from work
much appreciated :beer: