I presume you've checked every detail against the two sections of the BPA Code of Practice covering signage to arrive at that conclusion?

Don't 'mess' with the template - it's been written by someone highly experienced in this stuff. It's there to protect the keeper and to set the scene for an ultimate POPLA appeal.

The NtK was addressed to the keeper, surely? (Amend your input!)

Understood on both points.

Thank you Umkomaas, I'll submit the template as it stands in the stickie.

One quick one guys, is it safe to give the appeal my real name, address, email etc as this is what's required in the online appeal process.

Yes you need to do this, otherwise they will ignore your appeal as not meeting the requirements. They will let it go beyond the deadline date then you'll have a real (probably unwinnable) battle to get a POPLA code, where you can kill this off.

But haven't they already got your name and address? How have they otherwise written to you?

Get yourself a throwaway email address to use exclusively for dealing with this PCN, don't use your day-to-day go-to email address.

Hi All,

A quick update here.

For the first of my tickets I have now received a POPLA code.
I find it strange that the parking company didn't drop the case as my documentation clearly states my landlord owns the space, but I guess these guys are all rogue and trying it on!

My appeal is on the grounds that they do not own the space and I have a title and letter from my landlord to back this up.

Does anyone have any advice on the wording that should be used?

(Separate note, it failed because the signage was deemed as correct and I believe I should have just input details of them not owning the space)

Additionally it is asking if I am appealing on behalf of another. As the registered keeper and not the driver, do I select that yes I am appealing on behalf of another or will I get a change later in the appeal to clarify that the drive was not me?

No. You appeal as yourself, the keeper. You are NOT appealing 'for' the driver.

Do not even try to put anything in on POPLA's website yet and don't tick any boxes anyway except 'OTHER' when you are ready and have a full appeal PDF to attach.

That's just ONE appeal point of half a dozen as normally used here.

Have a look at the recent posts from last weekend in 'POPLA Decisions' and use the templates. Also search for 'POPLA permit space' to read recent similar ones to copy from.

It failed because they ALWAYS reject appeals - the signs are never clear - you could have talked about a radioactive spider (like the Parking Prankster famously did!) in your appeal and it would have been turned down regardless:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/highview-parking-spurred-into-immediate.html

Your POPLA appeal needs to include unclear signage - you will find a template in 'POPLA Decisions' which I posted up last weekend.

Any input on my planned popla appeal would be great guys!

To whom it may concern:
I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from CarParkingPartnership (CPP).

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

• No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
• The signage was inadequate - no valid contract formed between CPP and the driver.
• The NTD (notice to driver) is non-compliant with POFA 2012

1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, CPP must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right.

The parking bay which CPP are trying to enforce is not owned by them. The land is infact owned by a private landlord who has confirmed that there is no agreement in place with the CPP.

The Operator has supplied no evidence to prove that it had authority to pursue charges on this land. The Operator has no proprietary interest in the land and had no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in its own name.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:
“The written authorisation must also set out:
a) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I therefore put CPP to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between the operator and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights which have been properly assigned to UKPC.

3. The signage was inadequate - no valid contract formed between CPP and the driver.

The signage in place is completely invalid, as since CPP do not own the land or have any contractual agreement with it's owner, they have no right to enforce this space and are infact tresspassing on the owners property, a fact that the land owner has been made aware of.

The signs that was in place also would fail to meet the requirements due to being away from the light sources in the car park area. The residential car park in which the parking bay is located is generally very dark and while parking at night is illegible.

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to fully comply with the following on entrance signage:

18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

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 their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

At the time of the contravention no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Unreadable signage in the car park due to lighting breaches British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice.
If a driver can't read the sum of the parking charge before parking - because the font is too small/the sign unremarkable and too high to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it. Also, a keeper appellant cannot be bound by inadequate notice of the charge either (POFA Schedule 4 requires 'adequate notice' of the sum of the parking charge, not just vague illegible small print, however near the car).

(COULD I GET INPUT ON A CASE WON BECAUSE OF POOR LIGHTING?)


i.e. even if a document or notice is ostensibly under the nose of a consumer, the onerous term needs to be VERY explicit and prominent. Not hidden among small print on a sign, regardless of whether that sign is in the vicinity of the car. This was reiterated by Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] where he held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way''. Small print on an illegible, unremarkable and pale sign on a wall is not enough.

No contract can have been formed between the driver and CPP because the signage is inadequate, unlit and the “charge” is not clearly displayed in large lettering. The ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis is irrelevant in this case as the parking spaces are for the enjoyment of the residents, and are not offered as spaces for public parking. A vehicle parking in his own dedicated is not depriving any other resident of their allotted parking space. Parking Eye v Beavis is only relevant to a public car park with a high turnover of public vehicles.

4. Beavis case not relevant.

As regards the location of the car park, the interests of the operator, there is no comparison with the Beavis decision. The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing their charge, the charge is disproportionate, a penalty and an unenforceable Unfair Contract Term, and this case can easily be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis.

The Operator may seek to rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis as legitimising the charge in this case. The appellant will make the following observations as to why the material case can be easily distinguished from it. The Supreme Court adjudged that the charge in ParkingEye v Beavis could not be considered a penalty, despite the fact that CPP made no loss, because they had a legitimate interest in enforcing that charge and that the charge was not disproportionate to that interest. The legitimate interest was described in the Supreme Court judgment as:

“97 a. The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants prospective customers;-
b. The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;-
c. The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential
number of such customers;-
d. The related need to prevent `misuse' of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants
business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to o -park premises; and
e. The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to them-selves.”

In that case the penalty rule had been engaged by the charge but was then disengaged for the above reasons.
In this case the appellant would submit that the penalty rule has similarly been engaged but in contrast it is not disengaged, the Operator has made no loss and the charge is a penalty. The vehicle was fully entitled to park as it did. The only alleged error is that temporarily on the material date a permit was not displayed (not that there is any obligation to). Had this been done it would have prevented a parking charge notice being issued.

The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing this charge, their only interest is to seek to profit from an inadvertent error. Their charge remains an unenforceable penalty as none of the legitimate interests pursued in Parking Eye v Beavis are present in this case. To quote the passage referred to in the Supreme Court judgment.

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.”

The Supreme Court made clear that their judgment related only to that particular car park and how it operated. In this situation it is impossible, without intellectual dishonesty, to believe that they would determine that this inadvertent error would justify such a disproportionate, extravagant and unconscionable charge when the vehicle was parked in its own allocated bay where it has every entitlement to. Careful analysis of the Supreme Court judgment is not, as the Operator may believe, a judicial green light legitimising all parking charges. It is indeed quite the reverse, and the onus is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest in enforcing their charge and that the charge is proportionate to that interest. In this case they do not and it is not.

In this case the imposition of a £100 charge for temporarily forgetting to display an unnecessary permit is quite obviously causing an imbalance of the parties’ rights to the detriment of the appellant contrary to the requirements of good faith. Had the Driver not overlooked displaying the permit then no such charge would have been issued.
It is difficult to imagine a more obvious Unfair Contract Term when all manner of reasons could cause such a momentary oversight. No reasonable person would agree to this charge and the charge is not achieving any objective whatsoever other than punishing an inadvertent error.

The sum of £100 is not communicated to drivers at all, let alone clearly and unambiguously, so it falls foul of the findings of the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye v Beavis, where the prominence of the £85 charge depicted on a simple sign in contrasting large lettering, was key. If a driver can't read the sum of the parking 'charge' (the £100 in this case) before parking - because the sign is wordy and unremarkable, the charge not prominent and the words too small to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet, not for any operator and not for CPP. That case depended upon clear, prominent and unambiguous signage and a specific and compelling commercial justification, giving rise to a rare exception to the penalty rule IN THAT CASE ONLY. It may be useful to refer to but it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals.

I would remind POPLA that, at the end of September 2015, the outgoing POPLA Service Manager confirmed this (below) in writing, as the official POPLA policy regarding the requirement for proper application (or not, as the case may be) of the Beavis case by both parties. By definition, it is never the remit of POPLA to 'make the Beavis case' for an operator whose argument is weak or silent as regards any 'legitimate' basis for their charge:

''It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Yours sincerely
R Reeve
POPLA Administrative Team “

The point here is, the new POPLA Service cannot and must not make any wrong assumptions about keeper liability nor impose the Beavis case arbitrarily upon all cases. There must be no misunderstanding by operators or POPLA that the Beavis case or 'GPEOL' (which I am not arguing, in fact) automatically supersedes all other points of appeal about other parking charges in other car parks.

It certainly does not 'supersede' all other points, is not a silver bullet and each case must still turn on its own facts.

The burden now shifts to this operator (not POPLA) to submit their argument to try to counter mine, that due to the facts of THIS charge in THIS car park with these signs, the Beavis case does not assist them at all.

5. The NTD (notice to driver) is non-compliant with POFA 2012.
As the "period of parking" is not specified, just the "date and time of event". The latter, being a single instant, does not give any information as to whether the driver was given enough time to consider the contract. As keeper I cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it requires permit then driven out after. However dispite the drivers thoughts as the evidence shows, this space is privately owned and confirmation has been issued by the land owner that the space does not require a permit.

This concludes my POPLA appeal
Yours faithfully,

Your bullet points at the top don't match the numbering.

I can't think of one off-hand although yes, POPLA cases have been won on 'unlit signs', both at 'old' (London Councils) version of POPLA and the current one.
Prove what you say; you'll need to prove the ownership of the bay - not just a right to use it - and prove he said that he has not authorised CPP to infest the bay.

Thanks Coupon,

I'm struggling to find cases on poor lighting to quote, could you recommend any sites to check or know of any cases?
I have a title and deed for the parking space sent by my landlord, however getting a letter saying they have not authorized CPP to enforce the bay might be difficult as she lives in Australia, do you think the deeds will be enough.

Amended document below;


Default
Any input on my planned popla appeal would be great guys!

To whom it may concern:
I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from CarParkingPartnership (CPP).

I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

• No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
• The signage was inadequate - no valid contract formed between CPP and the driver.

• Beavis case not relevant

• The NTD (notice to driver) is non-compliant with POFA 2012

1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, CPP must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right.

The parking bay which CPP are trying to enforce is not owned by them. The land is infact owned by a private landlord who has confirmed that there is no agreement in place with the CPP.

The Operator has supplied no evidence to prove that it had authority to pursue charges on this land. The Operator has no proprietary interest in the land and had no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in its own name.

In addition, Section 7.3 of the CoP states:
“The written authorisation must also set out:
a) The definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) Any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) Any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) Who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) The definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.''

I therefore put CPP to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between the operator and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights which have been properly assigned to UKPC.

2. The signage was inadequate - no valid contract formed between CPP and the driver.

The signage in place is completely invalid, as since CPP do not own the land or have any contractual agreement with it's owner, they have no right to enforce this space and are infact tresspassing on the owners property, a fact that the land owner has been made aware of.

The signs that was in place also would fail to meet the requirements due to being away from the light sources in the car park area. The residential car park in which the parking bay is located is generally very dark and while parking at night is illegible.

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires operators to fully comply with the following on entrance signage:

18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

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 their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

At the time of the contravention no signage was clearly visible by the vehicle. Unreadable signage in the car park due to lighting breaches British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice.
If a driver can't read the sum of the parking charge before parking - because the font is too small/the sign unremarkable and too high to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it. Also, a keeper appellant cannot be bound by inadequate notice of the charge either (POFA Schedule 4 requires 'adequate notice' of the sum of the parking charge, not just vague illegible small print, however near the car).

(COULD I GET INPUT ON A CASE WON BECAUSE OF POOR LIGHTING?)


i.e. even if a document or notice is ostensibly under the nose of a consumer, the onerous term needs to be VERY explicit and prominent. Not hidden among small print on a sign, regardless of whether that sign is in the vicinity of the car. This was reiterated by Denning LJ in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] where he held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way''. Small print on an illegible, unremarkable and pale sign on a wall is not enough.

No contract can have been formed between the driver and CPP because the signage is inadequate, unlit and the “charge” is not clearly displayed in large lettering. The ruling of Parking Eye v Beavis is irrelevant in this case as the parking spaces are for the enjoyment of the residents, and are not offered as spaces for public parking. A vehicle parking in his own dedicated is not depriving any other resident of their allotted parking space. Parking Eye v Beavis is only relevant to a public car park with a high turnover of public vehicles.

3. Beavis case not relevant.

As regards the location of the car park, the interests of the operator, there is no comparison with the Beavis decision. The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing their charge, the charge is disproportionate, a penalty and an unenforceable Unfair Contract Term, and this case can easily be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis.

The Operator may seek to rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis as legitimising the charge in this case. The appellant will make the following observations as to why the material case can be easily distinguished from it. The Supreme Court adjudged that the charge in ParkingEye v Beavis could not be considered a penalty, despite the fact that CPP made no loss, because they had a legitimate interest in enforcing that charge and that the charge was not disproportionate to that interest. The legitimate interest was described in the Supreme Court judgment as:

“97 a. The need to provide parking spaces for their commercial tenants prospective customers;-
b. The desirability of that parking being free so as to attract customers;-
c. The need to ensure a reasonable turnover of that parking so as to increase the potential
number of such customers;-
d. The related need to prevent `misuse' of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants
business, for example by commuters going to work or shoppers going to o -park premises; and
e. The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to them-selves.”

In that case the penalty rule had been engaged by the charge but was then disengaged for the above reasons.
In this case the appellant would submit that the penalty rule has similarly been engaged but in contrast it is not disengaged, the Operator has made no loss and the charge is a penalty. The vehicle was fully entitled to park as it did. The only alleged error is that temporarily on the material date a permit was not displayed (not that there is any obligation to). Had this been done it would have prevented a parking charge notice being issued.

The Operator has no legitimate interest in enforcing this charge, their only interest is to seek to profit from an inadvertent error. Their charge remains an unenforceable penalty as none of the legitimate interests pursued in Parking Eye v Beavis are present in this case. To quote the passage referred to in the Supreme Court judgment.

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation.”

The Supreme Court made clear that their judgment related only to that particular car park and how it operated. In this situation it is impossible, without intellectual dishonesty, to believe that they would determine that this inadvertent error would justify such a disproportionate, extravagant and unconscionable charge when the vehicle was parked in its own allocated bay where it has every entitlement to. Careful analysis of the Supreme Court judgment is not, as the Operator may believe, a judicial green light legitimising all parking charges. It is indeed quite the reverse, and the onus is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest in enforcing their charge and that the charge is proportionate to that interest. In this case they do not and it is not.

In this case the imposition of a £100 charge for temporarily forgetting to display an unnecessary permit is quite obviously causing an imbalance of the parties’ rights to the detriment of the appellant contrary to the requirements of good faith. Had the Driver not overlooked displaying the permit then no such charge would have been issued.
It is difficult to imagine a more obvious Unfair Contract Term when all manner of reasons could cause such a momentary oversight. No reasonable person would agree to this charge and the charge is not achieving any objective whatsoever other than punishing an inadvertent error.

The sum of £100 is not communicated to drivers at all, let alone clearly and unambiguously, so it falls foul of the findings of the Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye v Beavis, where the prominence of the £85 charge depicted on a simple sign in contrasting large lettering, was key. If a driver can't read the sum of the parking 'charge' (the £100 in this case) before parking - because the sign is wordy and unremarkable, the charge not prominent and the words too small to read from a driver's seat - then they cannot have agreed to it.

The Beavis decision is not a silver bullet, not for any operator and not for CPP. That case depended upon clear, prominent and unambiguous signage and a specific and compelling commercial justification, giving rise to a rare exception to the penalty rule IN THAT CASE ONLY. It may be useful to refer to but it cannot be twisted to strike out the majority of private parking ticket appeals.

I would remind POPLA that, at the end of September 2015, the outgoing POPLA Service Manager confirmed this (below) in writing, as the official POPLA policy regarding the requirement for proper application (or not, as the case may be) of the Beavis case by both parties. By definition, it is never the remit of POPLA to 'make the Beavis case' for an operator whose argument is weak or silent as regards any 'legitimate' basis for their charge:

''It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Yours sincerely
R Reeve
POPLA Administrative Team “

The point here is, the new POPLA Service cannot and must not make any wrong assumptions about keeper liability nor impose the Beavis case arbitrarily upon all cases. There must be no misunderstanding by operators or POPLA that the Beavis case or 'GPEOL' (which I am not arguing, in fact) automatically supersedes all other points of appeal about other parking charges in other car parks.

It certainly does not 'supersede' all other points, is not a silver bullet and each case must still turn on its own facts.

The burden now shifts to this operator (not POPLA) to submit their argument to try to counter mine, that due to the facts of THIS charge in THIS car park with these signs, the Beavis case does not assist them at all.

4. The NTD (notice to driver) is non-compliant with POFA 2012.
As the "period of parking" is not specified, just the "date and time of event". The latter, being a single instant, does not give any information as to whether the driver was given enough time to consider the contract. As keeper I cannot discount that the driver may have driven in, realised it requires permit then driven out after. However despite the drivers thoughts as the evidence shows, this space is privately owned and confirmation has been issued by the land owner that the space does not require a permit.

This concludes my POPLA appeal
Yours faithfully,

Surely your main points should be 'no keeper liability' and 'no evidence that the appellant keeper is the individual liable (driver) because there was no NTK served at all (or did they send one)? If they did then POFA flaws with that are important whereas the NTD is relatively less important. If they did NOT serve a NTK then you can adapt the example wording here about 'no NTK served':

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71316870#post71316870

Have a look at the template POPLA appeal points recently added to the POPLA Decisions thread. You can use two or three and one is a detailed 'unclear signage' version which you could adapt to bang on about there also being no lighting.

I've not gone back through this entire thread, so take my comments in the context of that caveat.

If your parking event was occasioned in the hours of darkness, get some photos taken at a similar time of day (or night?) to show how difficult/impossible it was to read signs at that time. Obviously don't use flash.

Then put the PPC to proof that their signs are readable and understandable at that hour. Throw the ball into their court (pun intended!) and let them, rather than you, squirm and do the running on this - if they wish to pursue you.

Hi guys,

Thank you for the feedback and sorry for the delay.

I think I need to clear up the template.

The NTK was served, did I leave any remnants of it in my latest copy of the appeal?

I think the trouble is that the thread you linked Umkomaas is that I'm not sure what stuff from the template needs to stay and what needs to go in my situation.

The big thing with my case is that they issued me a ticket on land owned by my landlord, evidenced by a title and statement of it's purchase I have.

Could you perhaps tell me what parts of the template I need to keep included and where I can add my case.

Many thanks!

As stated already, your main points should be 'no keeper liability' and 'no evidence that the appellant keeper is the individual liable (driver) because of POFA flaws with that document.

Have a look at the template POPLA appeal points recently added to the POPLA Decisions thread. You can use two or three and one is a detailed 'unclear signage' version which you could adapt to bang on about there also being no lighting.

Hi Guys,

Can you read over my appeal please.

Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: xxx
POPLA Verification Code: xxx


I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Car Parking Partnership.

As the keeper of the car, I have contacted the driver of the event, and was allowed to quote the words here: "This is my landlords space and I have full authority to use the space, as proven in the deed and map of the space attached that my landlord owns."

Based on the quotation and evidence attached I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. Car Parking Partnership Ltd has no contractual authority
2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
3. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
4. The car parking space has signage 'albeit unclear' but the signage has no place on private land.


1. Car Parking Partnership Ltd has no contractual authority

In the notices they have sent me Car Parking Partnership Ltd have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I require Car Parking Partnership Ltd to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that Car Parking Partnership Ltd are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was, I submit that I am not liable to any charge. In regards to the notices I have received Car Parking Partnership Ltd has made it clear that it is operating under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act but has not fully met all the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The Act clearly states that the parking charge notice to keeper should invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge (or if he/she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and pass a copy of the notice on to that driver). In their parking charge notice letter at no point did they actually invite me as the registered keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead they imply that my only choice is to give up the name of the driver of the vehicle (when in actual fact I am under no legal obligation to do so). The wording of the PCN actually makes it sound like I have little choice but to give up the driver and does not actually state the choice to pay it myself. I would also like to point out that the Act stipulates that the parking company must provide me with the period the car was parked. I would strongly argue that the format of evidence provided (photographs from a number plate recognition camera showing the vehicle enter and leave the car park) is not actually valid or sufficient on its own as a form of evidence. Parking Eye should also have issued a Notice to Driver stuck on the vehicle to back up their claims that the car was even parked in the first place, which in this case they failed to do.


3. No Contract was entered into between the Car Parking Partnership Ltd and the Driver or Registered keeper

Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Car Parking Partnership Ltd clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of Car Parking Partnership Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Car Parking Partnership Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I request that Car Parking Partnership Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.


4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (night, raining).

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that Car Parking Partnership Ltd is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a permit.

The alleged breach occurred at night and the signs were not visible (readable) or illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself was not illuminated as the public lighting was off. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by Car Parking Partnership Ltd plus to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time of darkness.

The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. Clearly none of these conditions were met (see attached photographs of non-bpa-compliant, non-obvious signage).

Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully

Double post guys, I've been moving house recently and my 28days to appeal to Popla is up! What can I do!?

POPLA codes are valid for over 28 days so if today is day 28 you are OK till the weekend. Or is it no longer working, older than 33 days?

Anyway, I have said twice what your first two appeal points should be...and where to find templates in 'POPLA Decisions' rather than copying an old example. And that one is quite a creaky example now that we have template new POPLA wording in 'POPLA Decisions' (penultimate page).

I will try a third time. See the comments here, same goes for your draft except your No Keeper Liability point #1 needs to be altered to show what is non-compliant about YOUR NTK (you can't copy that point as that's about a ParkingEye PCN being compared to para 9, not the same flaws as your NTK compared with para 8):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5538581

Your point #2 is generic and suggests you have not compared your PCN to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 yet. That's your task!


And you need this in your appeal, showing that the car was authorised to use that bay:
IanMSpencer wrote a decent POPLA argument about permitted parking in residents' parking bays. That is also in POPLA Decisions, same page.

HTH

Hey Coupon,

It's over the 33 days now.

Sorry for the effort you're going through with me, I guess I'm not getting it. I've read through the thread you've linked a few times now and I realise from your post I need to address points 1&2, by Para 8/9 are you referring to the information in my different paragraphs just aren't aligning?

Thank you!

so you didn't send it in ?

Ralph

Paragraph 8 and 9 is the wording in the POFA Schedule 4, setting out what a NTK must have.

If you've missed POPLA then ignore CarParkingPartnership like everyone else does with any PPC where there is no chance of any appeal (e.g. every IPC firm ticket, we tell people to sit tight & ignore after the first appeal).

You are now in 'ignore the debt collector' stage as shown in post #4 of the NEWBIES thread. Come back if they try a small claim of course, or if you get a solicitor's letter.

Please, please, do not post about debt collector letters. Done to death on here already!