PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Britannia Parking Charge Notice Canvey Island, Threads merged
catintheoffice
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 08:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Hi,

Wonder if you can help?? We were on holiday, popped into canvey island for an hour, quick walk around the seafront, popped into the fair for the little one and off we went. Got home to a parking charge notice from Brittania with the contravention 'failed to validate stay or make valid payment'. So we only paid an hour, but we were captured on camera entering/exiting totalling a period of 1hour 20 mins. Made an inital appeal using a template from the moneysavingexpert forum, (obviously not stating who the driver was) which has been rejected.

I've written a popla appeal and wanted to run it by you. As I can't remember what the signage was like, don't have the ticket we bought, or any other evidence, the only thing I feel we can appeal on is the grace period and ANPR system. POFA 2012 is included in the parking charge notice as iis informtaion on the creditor managing the site.

What do you think...

Thanks for any advice.



POPLA Ref No XXXXX
Vehicle Registration Number XXXXXX

I, the registered keeper of the stated vehicle received a Parking Charge Notice from Britannia Parking for a parking contravention of failing to validate stay or make valid payment on XXXXXX. The entry and exit times were captured by their cameras at the entrance and exit of the car park and have such been taken as the times 'parked', therefore the 'stay' was longer than the 1hr parking paid for.

As the registered keeper of the vehicle I would like to appeal to you on the following grounds:

1. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator:
The vehicle entered the car park at (1hour and 19 minutes length of stay)
British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:

13 Grace periods
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. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end
of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The camera captured the vehicle at the entrance/exit, not inside the car park and therefore cannot state the exact times the vehicle was parked, therefore how can they possible prove the time the vehicle was 'parked'?

I would like to add that the car park is in a terrible state of repair and that makes it difficult to find a space and park safely, especially as it was full on the day in question and also avoiding potholes which could damage the vehicle and large puddles.

2. Also Britannia Parking have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

Britannia Parking has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 08:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
kommando
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 09:15
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Why not include signage even if you have no pics of your own, Britannia in one appeal included undated pics of their signage in an attempt to show it complied, when this was pointed out the appeal was granted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 09:34
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,637
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Why don't you post up a suitably redacted copy of your PCN for comments?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 10:03
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Fab, ok. So here's the original PCN.

This post has been edited by catintheoffice: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 10:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 10:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Date of incident ?

Date of NTK issue ?

and the day it came in the post ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Derek Donovan
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 15:13
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 89
Joined: 24 Sep 2013
From: Cardiff
Member No.: 65,447



Can I suggest:
Change:
I would like to add that the car park is in a terrible state of repair and that makes it difficult to find a space and park safely, especially as it was full on the day in question and also avoiding potholes which could damage the vehicle and large puddles.
To:
I would like to add: the driver found the car park in a terrible state of repair.
Had he/she decided to park it would have been difficult to find a space to park safely avoiding potholes which could damage the vehicle, especially as the car park was full on the day in question.


--------------------
Moved on a little from when I first posted, I’m now 76 but still the private parking industry sickens me along with a toothless government that fails to act to stop them
Back in 2012I took on NGPM and threatening them with court action to pay my PCN (Personal Costs Notice) they paid up.
Derek
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 15:42
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



The date of the contravention was 30 Jul, issued on the 8th, received in the post the 9th August.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 18:54
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,197
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



That is NOT a winning POPLA appeal.

You have missed several of the template POPLA points that are in the third post of the MSE NEWBIES thread.

and this entire point needs binning, POPLA take no notice of this:

QUOTE
2. Also Britannia Parking have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

Britannia Parking has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.


This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 18:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 20:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Hi

Thank you for your comments.

I've looked through many posts and have read through the money saving expert forum, and would really appreciate your thoughts on this version please.


Appeal re POPLA ref: xxxxx
Vehicle Registration: xxxxx

I received a letter dated 8th August 2018 acting as a notice to the registered keeper from Britannia Parking. My appeal to the operator was
submitted and acknowledged on 13th August 2018 but subsequently rejected by a letter dated 30 August 2018.

I contend that as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

2) There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car
park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location nor boundary
of the venue.

3) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict
proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

4) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice'
applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement,
no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified,
fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach

5) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012
requirements

6) Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice –
non-compliance

7) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

8) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data
will be used for

9) No genuine pre-estimate of loss

1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice–non-compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the
end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
“If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not
normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
“If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association
(BPA):
“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.” “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.”

It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Britannia Parking
claim was 1 hour 18 minutes) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:

a) the driver found the car park in a terrible state of repair, with no marked out bays and had they decided to park it would have been difficult to find a space to park safely, avoiding potholes which could damage the vehicle, especially as the car park was busy on the day in question.

b) The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage throughout the car park in question (non- compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.2 and 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.

c) There is no marked parking bay throughout the venue which causes confusion to the applicability of the Britannia Parking's contract, that was never entered into in the first place.

All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
Locate a sign indicating entrance
Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
Read the full terms and conditions
Decipher the confusing information being presented
Decide not to park and therefore not entering into a contract
Return to car and safely leave the car park

2. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. Furthermore, there is no marked parking bay at the location.

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.2) states:

“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.”

BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
BPA’s Code of Practice (Appendix B) states:
“If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”

3. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA Code of Practice) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.

4. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.

BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:
“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
a) be registered with the Information Commissioner
b) keep to the Data Protection Act
c) follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
d) follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of
Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:

https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:
“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment
including:

• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”
“the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”

“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”
“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”
“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”
“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”

“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”

“Note: ... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality
and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”
“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if Britannia Parking wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that Britannia Parking must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it. It therefore follows that I require Britannia Parking to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary
and proportionate”.

The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:
“5.3 Staying in Control
Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:
• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”

“7.6 Privacy Notices
It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.
One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.”

Britannia Parking has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Britannia Parking has not stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR, such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful. As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law,
POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

5. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements
Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record
to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

Britannia Parking’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered Canvey Island - Seafront at 11:43:19 and departed at 13:01:55”. At no stage does Britannia Parking explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012.

Britannia Parking uses ANPR (while failing to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR) to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the vast unbounded and unmarked area to calculate their length of stay. Any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. Britannia Parking, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of Britannia Parking to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Britannia Parking are not able to definitively state the period of parking.
I require Britannia Parking to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was
parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the
NtK.

6. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. 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 NtK in question contains two close-up license plate images and an image of the front and back of the vehicle. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by Britannia Parking’s APRN. As a result, these images cannot be used as the confirmation of the incident and Britannia Parking claim was unauthorised.

I require Britannia Parking to produce evidence of the original images containing the required date and time stamp and images showing the car is actually parked in the location stated rather than just passing by. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, failing to produce such evidence would indicate the Britannia Parking has been using APRN to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send NtK with the aim to extract penalty. Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by.

Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximizing the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Private parking operators are financially incentivized not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require Britannia Parking to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for
The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
Paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Britannia Parking’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
There is no information indicates that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.

8. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is Pay and Display and as far as I can ascertain as keeper, a payment was made.

The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs, as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. I suggest there was never any advance meeting held with the client, nor was any due regard paid to establishing any 'genuine pre-estimate of loss' prior to setting the parking charges at this site. I put this operator to strict proof to the contrary and to explain how the calculation happens to be the same whether the alleged overstay is 20 minutes or 20 hours.

The Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This must amount in its entirety, only to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they have devised afterwards, since this would not be a pre-estimate. Any later 'new' calculation (even if dressed up to look like a loss statement) would fall foul of Mr Greenslade's explanation abut GPEOL in the POPLA 2014 Report and would also falls foul of the DFT Guidance about private parking charges.

In this case, even if the Operator contends there was a small outstanding P&D sum (which they have missed off the Notice to Keeper) they certainly cannot claim an inflated amount. A GPEOL calculation must be a sum which might reasonably flow directly as a result of a parking event.

An Operator cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage.

Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' (where the Claimant tried to claim a 'loss' from a consumer for 'staff and/or management time investigating') stated:
"[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them. They were doing just what the claimants paid for them to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss – administrative costs and security equipment costs – were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants’ activities. The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed’’

In the case of private parking charges in general - including this Operator - the administrative staff and Managers who handle challenges and POPLA appeals are not 'significantly diverted from their usual activities', nor do appeals cause any 'significant disruption to its business', nor was there any significant loss of revenue generation. So none of the 'staff time' can be properly included in a GPEOL calculation. If POPLA do accept a small amount of staff time in a GPEOL sum then this could only be 1% of the typical time taken for POPLA appeals, because only 1% of cases follow the POPLA route. No higher figure can have been in the reasonable contemplation of the Operator at the time of the parking event because the chances of POPLA are even less than 'debt collector stage' both being far too remote to be likely.

POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

This post has been edited by catintheoffice: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 20:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 20:49
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,197
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Rescue me from those split infinitives please, by getting rid of the grammar atrocity at the start where someone typed ''I'' followed by a comma, leaving the poor verb stranded several words later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Tue, 4 Sep 2018 - 21:42
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Ha! Ok. Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 07:39
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Does the BPA CoP REALLY state "authoriZed" and not "authorised"?

If not, check your spell checker settings...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 20:25
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Ok, so I've changed the spelling and the split infinitives. Can you give me any advice on the actual content and whether it would be good enough to win an appeal against the charge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 08:04
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Given you copied a winning apppeal, yes. You just have to ensure the details match your case, precisely.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 16:38
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Thank you so much!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 19:13
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Hi Guys

Thanks for helping with my Popla Appeal which I pretty much copied from the 'winning Popla appeal' MSE posts. They have written back offering me a chance to comment on Brittania Parking's response. It seems they have an answer for everything.

They have included in their evidence, a statement which I have attached, a redacted landowner's agreement, photographs of all seven signs; none of which show the entrance nor any sign at the entrance and a transaction report with registrations.

What can I say to help my case as it seems a few of my points have been addressed.

Thank you for any advice.

Cat

This post has been edited by catintheoffice: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 19:24
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 19:40
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,941
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



You can start by keeping one case to one thread! We don't want to trawl the whole forum to get the full story.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122517


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 19:51
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



Right, I wasn't sure if it would get lost. Sorry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 1 Oct 2018 - 10:48
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,385
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Well if we did see it we wouldnt know how to comment. Plus, when you post to a thread it pops back to the top

Go through their response and comment:
1) any appeal point they havent challenged, they are deemed to accept. So if they have not said there is an entrance sign and proven there is one, then you tell POPLA the operators concees there is no entrance sign and therefore they are not compliant with the BPA CoP. As this is mandatory, the PCN could not have been issued correctly and theappeal must beupheld.

2) Anything theyve tried to answer, but their answer just doesnt stakc up. For example are the signs of the car park you want to go to? Does the contract actually cover the right site, for the right dates, and you can confirm it was signed by someone who was the landholder?

Summarise into bullet points, and DO NOT waffle - you have 2000 *characters* only.
Once youve done a first pass, tell us what youve found. And hurry abou tit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
catintheoffice
post Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 21:26
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 8 Jun 2016
Member No.: 84,836



So, my appeal was rejected. Should I just pay?

Attached File(s)
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 13th November 2018 - 03:38
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.