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
    • Nazg
    • By Nazg 18th Mar 18, 3:51 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Nazg
    Smart Parking - POPLA appeal
    • #1
    • 18th Mar 18, 3:51 PM
    Smart Parking - POPLA appeal 18th Mar 18 at 3:51 PM
    I did an appeal with Smart Parking for a 16 minute overstay at Astle Park in West Brom, based on their ANPR system. To be honest the appeal was not very clever and it is only after it was rejected that I started reading into ANPR tickets, private parking firms (pretty shady business) and how to appeal properly.

    Anyway, I spent the time to put a proper appeal together for the POPLA stage. At first I was just !!!!ed off I was charged for overstaying 16 minutes, after having overpaid for the ticket in the first place (almost enough for another hour). The signs and instructions at the machine were not clear and I did not realise that the machine only sold full hours and did not give change back. After looking into the details of the PCN, reading about a hundred posts on this forum as well as the BPA Code of Conduct, I find a dozen reasons I could tear this PCN apart.

    I copy the draft text of the appeal (without pictures) here. If anyone is willing to have a quick read throught and let me know if there are any errors e.g. on quoting or interpreting rules, based on precedents with POPLA, that would be really appreciated.
Page 1
    • Nazg
    • By Nazg 18th Mar 18, 3:57 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Nazg
    • #2
    • 18th Mar 18, 3:57 PM
    • #2
    • 18th Mar 18, 3:57 PM
    I relied on a previous post for a lot of the content and structure, as it was for the same location. Here is the text. I appreciate it is a long read but might also be useful to others.


    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re: Parking Charge Reference number XXXXX, Vehicle registration XXXXX, Appeal number XXXXXXX

    I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from Smart Parking. My appeal to Smart Parking was notified as rejected the 16th March 2018 and they gave me POPLA code XXXXX to quote for appeal to yourselves.

    I am appealing as the registered keeper and whilst I and the vehicle owner were occupants of the vehicle, the actual driver of the car has never been identified and this remains the burden of the parking operator.

    The basis of my appeal is on the following grounds:
    1) The minimum grace periods was not allowed by the operator
    2) The signage on site was inadequate
    3) The handling of the Parking Charge Notice is riddled with non-compliances
    a. Smart Parking has not been able to identify the driver
    b. The Parking Charge Notice does not constitute Notice To Keeper
    c. The photographs provided contain discrepancies and cannot be used as evidence
    d. No acknowledgment of the initial appeal given within the required 14 days
    4) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate
    5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    I appreciate you taking the below into account during your objective considered assessment.

    1. The minimum grace periods were not allowed by the operator
    The receipt provided indicates that as a minimum, parking has been purchased for until 15:10 on the day, with the vehicle allegedly exiting the site at 15:26. The charge of £100 that was demanded for overstaying by 16 minutes is unreasonable as the British Parking Association code of practice (BPA CoP) states:
    “13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    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.
    13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.”
    A payment of £1.35 was made to cover the duration of parking, as per the parking entry sign, considering an hourly charge of £0.80. However, and notwithstanding the fact that only one hour of parking permit was given for the amount paid which more than covered the full time the vehicle spent on site, the operator has not considered appropriate grace and observation periods at the beginning and end of the stay. This is particularly important considering:
    - The method of payment, at a machine and on a busy day, with the requirement to return to the vehicle after payment to manually display the receipt
    - The inadequate signage and display of terms and conditions, presented in a fragmented way on signs inconsistently displayed around the site
    - The event taking place on a Saturday afternoon which was particularly busy, with little parking space and cars queuing on the adjacent road upon exit

    More details on how to apply the requirements of the Code of Practice on grace periods was given by Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA):
    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.
    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
    So the BPA believes that 5-10 minutes period is acceptable depending upon various factors and then a MINIMUM of another ten minutes must be allowed at the end. The Signage on entry to Astle Retail Park is not clear detailing the grace period, when the parking period begins and its parking charges. Therefore the alleged overstay of 16 minutes falls well within the limits of an appropriate grace period and the Parking Charge Notice should be discounted on that basis. Note that as explained further in Section 3, one of the photographs provided by Smart Parking on the PCN indicates an exit time at 15:25 in the embedded time stamp box in the corner, which suggests that the alleged overstay may in fact be less than 15 minutes, which further strengthens the argument of the inadequate grace period.

    2. The signage on site was inadequate
    The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges. Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    In comparison, the signs displayed by Smart Parking at Astle Retail Park fail on several counts:
    - At least six (6) different types of signage, including instructions at the payment machine, are displayed around site. Each sign provides different information to drivers who cannot reasonably be expected to walk around the parking to ensure that they have identified each and every sign and read and understood the terms written on each type. See examples Figures 2 to 5. The fragmented presentation of important information and of terms and conditions means that drivers are bound to miss or misunderstand some of the information, which negates the argument that the driver had entered in a contract with Smart Parking based on its terms and conditions.

    - Signs are generally displayed at height, with a substantial amount of text written in inadequately small font which makes it difficult or impossible to read and understand from a vehicle. The only sign that may be considered to be legible from a vehicle by all vehicles entering site is the parking entry sign shown on Figure 2. Note that this sign indicates to purchase parking for the duration of the stay. The payer of parking ticket complied with this instruction, showing good will and compliance by paying £1.35 for his stay of allegedly 1 hour and 16 minutes, considering an hourly rate of £0.80. The lack of clarity, legibility and consistency of the signage is likely to have been a contributing factor to the alleged overstay.

    - The signage for the terms and conditions (Figure 4) has very small font and has over 630 words which is difficult to read and understand. Furthermore, the terms and conditions were impossible to find on the day. Further inspection revealed that only a small number of terms and conditions signage are displayed. This signage is furthermore located at an excessive distance from where customers would normally park or pay for parking.

    - The different signs are scattered around the site in an inconsistent way and are not within view of customers parking or paying for parking. Examples of inadequate positioning are provided below based on images viewed from Google Maps:
    Parking charge sign far from both machines, very small format, positioned too high for view and obstructed from view by cable ducting and wall corner! Separate sign about help for payment, very high. No terms and conditions displayed!

    The terms and conditions displayed do not state the parking charges let alone the sum payable for unauthorised parking. The BPS COP states:
    “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.
    18.4 If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations.“
    The signage before entering the car park states: “purchase a parking ticket for the duration of your stay” which was complied with. The sign on entry has no reference when the parking period begins. The POPLA annual report 2016 states:
    “In an ANPR controlled car park where no statement on the signs indicates that the parking period begins on entry to the car park, as opposed to when a vehicle parks, we may discount the amount of time between entry and parking when calculating the grace period at the end of the contract. This is because the average motorist would assume that a period of parking begins when they park the vehicle, and not when they enter the car park.”
    In summary, this case by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' consistently and clearly displayed throughout the car park that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and agreement on the charge existed.
    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    3. The handling of the Parking Charge Notice is riddled with non-compliances
    If Smart Parking want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and Smart Parking have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, the Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that Smart Parking have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA. More specifically:
    a. Smart Parking has not been able to identify the driver
    The BPA code of practice says: “20.10 In either case, you will need to try to identify who was driving the vehicle and make contact with them. You do this by first seeking the keeper details from the DVLA. Having received the keeper details from the DVLA you will need to issue a ‘Notice to Keeper’.” Smart Parking have not identified the identity of the driver who would be responsible for paying the parking charge if demonstrated to be legitimate and for a genuine breach of established contract. Both the registered keeper and the owner of the car (who filed the initial appeal with Smart Parking) were present as customers of Astle Retail Park shopping centre. However the actual driver of the car has never been identified and this remains the burden of the parking operator.
    b. The Parking Charge Notice does not constitute Notice To Keeper
    Having not been able to identify the driver, Smart Parking issued a Parking Charge Notice to the registered keeper of the vehicle. However, this PCN cannot be considered to constitute a “Notice to Keeper” as defined in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 because of the multiple non-compliances to the BPA COP and to POFA 2012, as demonstrated below:
    - The BPA COP clause 20.11 states that: “The Notice to Keeper serves three purposes: • it invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge • if the keeper was not the driver it invites the keeper to tell you who the driver was, and • it starts the 28-day time period after which the keeper may become liable to pay the unpaid parking charge.”. However the PCN issued by Smart Parking fails to meet the first two requirements. At no point does it invite the keeper to pay the parking charge and at no point does it invite the keeper to reveal the identity of the driver. At best these points are implied in the following passage of the PCN: “If you were not the driver of the vehicle and you wish to provide the drivers details, lodge a dispute, appeal or query this must be made online or in writing.”

    - The BPA COP clause 20.14 states: “When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.”. However, although the PCN does include a “Data Protection” section, the only reasonable cause provided in it is the existence of the PCN itself with no further details and making the unsubstantiated claim of “reasonable cause”: “This Parking Charge has been issued for the reasons explained overleaf, therefore giving reasonable cause…”.

    - Schedule 4 paragraph 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. The following is entirely missing from the PCN issued by Smart Parking, therefore making the PCN non-compliant with the requirements for being considered to be a Notice to Keeper:

    o “the period of parking to which the notice relates”: the PCN only mentions recorded alleged entry and exit times, not the period of parking.
    o “inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;”: the PCN does not inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges. The PCN only states that “A parking charge notice of £100 is now due for payment”. It does not inform the keeper of its responsibilities or of that of the driver.
    o “State that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;”: as mentioned above, none of these elements is stated in the PCN.

    c. The photographs provided contain discrepancies and cannot be used as evidence
    The BPA COP states in Section 20.5: “A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” The two photographs included as “evidence” in the PCN issued by Smart Parking fail to this requirement on four counts:
    - I would like to bring into question the authenticity of the photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps. By close examination of the photographs, the details (time, date, licence plate) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper left hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    - The black overlay box inserted into the photographs contains text that cannot be considered to be clear and legible considering the type and size of font and the size of the pictures provided.

    - The inserted black overlay box partially covers what may be the actual time stamp of the picture taken by the ANPR equipment.

    - The time indicated in the black overlay box is “3:25:23 P.M.”, which contradicts the time indicated in the caption below the picture on the PCN. Considering the argument on the grace period presented previously, the minute of difference is very important as it means that the alleged overstay could be less than 15 minutes, which is considered to be the absolute minimum combined grace period, considering 5-10 minutes at the start and 10 minutes at the end of the stay. In addition this casts doubt over the reliability of the technology and processes used by the operator to issue this PCN which I argue could be discounted on that point alone.

    d. No response or acknowledgment of the initial appeal was given by Smart Parking within the required 14 days as specified by the BPA Code of Practice clause 22.8, whether by post or by email. An initial challenge was lodged the 13/02/18 by the owner of the vehicle, with a duplicate challenge made the 24/02/18 (see Figure XX) as no acknowledgment had been received to the first one. Both challenges remained non-acknowledged until a response from Smart Parking was received the 16/03/18, in other words 31 days after the initial challenge.


    4. The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate
    The entry and exit times recorded by the ANPR system at Astle Retail Park cannot be considered to provide evidence of the alleged breach of the alleged contract. The discrepancies and errors within the photographs themselves are discussed above. This alones casts serious doubts that the requirements of Section 21 of the BPA were complied with, in particular the following requirements 21.2 and 21.3: “Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action.” And “You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.”
    I therefore challenge Smart Parking Ltd to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I also challenge Smart Parking to prove that appropriate manual quality check processes are in place, maintained and robustly audited by independent parties.
    Furthermore, the ANPR system alone does not provide evidence that the vehicle in question remained parked for a continuous period exceeding the allowed time. It can be reasonably conceived that the driver could have left and come back between the times the two provided photographs were taken, for example to pick up its passengers within the allowed grace period for the second stay. Precedents exist of this situation occurring with the assessor ruling that the operator had to disprove this possibility with tangible evidence. Considering the large number of vehicles using the car park, in particular on a Saturday, it is statistically certain that this situation will occur on occasions. I therefore ask Smart Parking to provide evidence that the vehicle was parked for a continuous period of time exceeding the allowed time, with reliable evidence to support the specified times and with due consideration of grace periods.

    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
    Smart Parking has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. BPA COP paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Smart Parking to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Smart Parking have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and ‘ticket’ vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that Smart Parking are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

    I require Smart Parking to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated, unredacted contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this, it will not be sufficient for Smart Parking merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no authority.

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    “7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 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”
    In addition, in the case of Astle Retail Park, the interest of the landowner is to attract and retain customers to the retail park, not to earn revenue through parking charges. Therefore it is very possible that the landowner would allow in its contract with the operator that first time offenders, or over-stays within a reasonable limit are not pursued by the operator as such practice would obviously hurt the business of the landowner. Smart Parking has not offered evidence of the exact terms under which it is allowed by the landowner to issue and seek payment of parking charges.
    Finally and as a note, the PCN issued by Smart Parking abusively and deceptively quotes the Parking Eye V Beavis case as evidence of authority to seek payment of the PCN. The specifics of the Beavis case should be noted: beyond the point relating to clarity, completeness and consistency of signage which is discussed above, the operator in the Beavis case was operating a “maximum stay” free parking, with parking charges as its only source of revenue. Smart Parking operates the parking at Astle Retail Park as a “time paid for” parking, with arguably paid time as its main source of revenue. Therefore the charge of £100 could well be considered to be excessive for the alleged overstay, notwithstanding the overwhelming number of irregularities evidenced and discussed in the rest of this document.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 18th Mar 18, 4:26 PM
    • 9,995 Posts
    • 9,805 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 18, 4:26 PM
    • #3
    • 18th Mar 18, 4:26 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Mar 18, 5:20 PM
    • 61,456 Posts
    • 74,348 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 18th Mar 18, 5:20 PM
    • #4
    • 18th Mar 18, 5:20 PM
    I am appealing as the registered keeper and whilst I and the vehicle owner were occupants of the vehicle, the actual driver of the car has never been identified and this remains the burden of the parking operator
    If this is correct and you are SURE the choice 'driver' was not picked on a dropdown menu on Smart Parking's appeal page, then you win, as log as you are certain none of the appeal above has 'I did this/that' in it (I only skim read).

    Remove this, it's pointless:
    4) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate
    This is also a pointless argument, if £1.35 was not a stated tariff, the driver DID NOT comply:
    Note that this sign indicates to purchase parking for the duration of the stay. The payer of parking ticket complied with this instruction, showing good will and compliance by paying £1.35 for his stay of allegedly 1 hour and 16 minutes, considering an hourly rate of £0.80.
    So that's actually admitting to not paying the right tariff. You can't make it up on pro rata basis!

    And instead of this complicated stuff about the NTK, which misses the point:

    - The BPA COP clause 20.11 states that: 'The Notice to Keeper serves three purposes: it invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge; if the keeper was not the driver it invites the keeper to tell you who the driver was, and: it starts the 28-day time period after which the keeper may become liable to pay the unpaid parking charge'. However the PCN issued by Smart Parking fails to meet the first two requirements. At no point does it invite the keeper to pay the parking charge and at no point does it invite the keeper to reveal the identity of the driver. At best these points are implied in the following passage of the PCN: 'If you were not the driver of the vehicle and you wish to provide the drivers details, lodge a dispute, appeal or query this must be made online or in writing.'
    Only the first two?! The third one about the '28 days till keeper liability', is the killer!

    You just need to quote, not the CoP, but POFA 9(2)f 'the warning' and point out it's missing.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-03-2018 at 5:22 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.

    • Nazg
    • By Nazg 10th May 18, 6:58 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Nazg
    • #5
    • 10th May 18, 6:58 PM
    • #5
    • 10th May 18, 6:58 PM
    As an update, my appeal was succesful, on the basis of lack of landowner authority. See the decision below for info. Thanks to people who shared advice !

    In his grounds for appeal to POPLA, the appellant has questioned the operator’s authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCNs at this car park. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. In response to the appellant’s claims, the operator has provided POPLA with a copy of a redacted contract it holds with the landowner. However, this contract does not state that the operator has the “authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. Additionally, there is no confirmation within this contract to state how long the contract is valid for. For clarity, this contract does not meet the criteria set out in Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, the operator has failed to adequately rebut the appellant’s claims. I conclude that the operator issued this PCN incorrectly. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not feel they required further consideration.
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 10th May 18, 10:03 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    • #6
    • 10th May 18, 10:03 PM
    • #6
    • 10th May 18, 10:03 PM
    I'm trying to find an original template please to start my appeal to POPLA thanks in advance Julia
    • Silversurreal
    • By Silversurreal 10th May 18, 10:36 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    Silversurreal
    • #7
    • 10th May 18, 10:36 PM
    • #7
    • 10th May 18, 10:36 PM
    IS THIS THE TEMPLATE I USE FOR POPLA PLEASE?


    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Re PCN number:

    I appeal and dispute your purported 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny liability and consider the PCN an absolute disgrace and pure intimidation.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there any agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

    Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require the following information with your rejection letter:

    1. Please provide dated photos of the signs on site, which you contend formed a contract.
    2. Please provide all images taken of this vehicle on that day, at the material location.

    I will use POPLA (if offered) not the 'IAS' which has been exposed in Parliament as compromised by a conflict of interests with the IPC. The BPA were also heavily criticised and both appeals systems were condemned - hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admitted in recent years to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and saying on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog). Firms of your ilk were unanimously criticised in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18).

    I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint about your predatory and aggressive conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

    Yours faithfully,


    THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER (OR THE HIRER/LESSEE) GOES HERE. THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

    DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME HERE INSTEAD, IF YOU ARE NOT THE KEEPER/HIRER/LESSEE. YOU ARE NOT HELPING IF YOU DO THIS WRONG BY APPEALING IN THE WRONG NAME!


    NO NEED TO USE YOUR REAL SIGNATURE - BUT DON'T POST IT BY ROYAL MAIL UNLESS YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTION ON THE PCN. CERTAINLY NOT BY RECORDED DELIVERY - FORGET THAT! - ALWAYS USE THE ONLINE APPEAL PAGE - OR EMAIL IF OFFERED AS AN OPTION ON THE NOTICE - BECAUSE THE APPEAL CANNOT GET LOST AND YOU CAN KEEP PROOF/ A SCREENSHOT

    You can (carefully!) add a little to the template above, 'in order to resolve the dispute I attach copies of...':

    - the driver's receipts/bank transactions (or Hospital Appointment/Hotel booking, etc.) that day as 'they' were a genuine customer/patient, etc.

    - If an occupant of the car is disabled or elderly/infirm, then the keeper can add that, without implying who was driving. A copy of the Blue Badge (BB) is a good idea to upload/attach, but a person with a long-term debilitating condition (not a broken arm!) can be disabled without a BB, and will be legally entitled to a 'reasonable adjustment'. That can and should include an extension of time, over and above free or paid-for parking time.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th May 18, 10:40 PM
    • 9,208 Posts
    • 9,375 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 10th May 18, 10:40 PM
    • #8
    • 10th May 18, 10:40 PM
    No it is not. That isn't from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread is it?

    Please delete that post from this thread.
    This is not your thread.

    Please go back to your original thread.
    .
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

3,456Posts Today

8,839Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin