PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ticket machine not working, Station ticket machine not working
HappyHarry
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 00:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



I tried to pay for parking at Redhill station, which has ANPR. The machine rejected my coins. I tried to pay by debit card. I input my details, the machine beeped then showed a message that said “call in progress”. Not sure if I’d paid, I input my details again. The same thing happened again. There was an option to pay by phone, but I didn’t have my mobile with me.

15 days later, I received a penalty notice by post from Indigo Park Solutions. I emailed my explanation which was rejected. I intend to appeal, their email says:
“You have now reached the end of the internal appeals procedure. Should you remain dissatisfied with this decision, you may further your appeal to an independent appeals service, ITAL Group Limited, within 28 days of this notice of rejection, details of which are available at www.asparking.co.uk.”

It seems to me from some of the threads that machines being out of order is no excuse for not paying but that a 14 day window to send me the notice has been missed. Is this the best route for me to follow?

Thank you in advance for any advice you post.


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 00:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 12:28
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



Wow, wow, my head is buzzing with all this info. You really are amazing people.
Pdf removed, big thank you Boomer.

I will be drafting my appeal and putting it up here for comment over the next few days.

Receiving the notice on day 15 was my big hope. But... This is a quote from knowyourparkingrights.org
“The timeframe of 14 days only applies if the operator is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  If the operator has not mentioned the use of the legislation within their notice, then they do not have to stick to the timelines stipulated within the Act.  This usually applies to tickets issued using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition).”

There’s no mention of POFA on the penalty notice (attached).

However, nosferatu1001 says “14 days is irrelevant, if there are byelaws; there can never be keeper liability”. Not doubting you, but trying to get my head around this, I have found this para on parkingcowboys.co.uk

“Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) allows vehicle keepers to be held liable for unpaid parking charges should the identity of the driver not be disclosed and they meet certain conditions. However, the keeper liability only applies to ‘relevant land’, which excludes highways, parking places operated by a traffic authority, or where parking is covered by statutory control. In other words, on land covered by byelaws, keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act is not applicable.

“The DVLAs KADOE contract is the enabling mechanism for the DVLA to release data to private parking companies. It states that they can only use the data released to seek recovery from the driver, or the keeper if the procedure in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is used. Since PoFA cannot be used under byelaws, for contract-based parking tickets, only the driver could be held liable. In such a situation the parking company might still write to the keeper to ask them to nominate the driver, but they cannot infer they have any liability.

“Some parking companies, such as Indigo, have tried to get around this by layering a contract model over the top of the byelaws. They make an offer to the owner to not prosecute them if they pay a £100 charge. This arrangement is legally flawed, and is discussed in one of our blog posts.” [I’ve included this paragraph as it is indeed Indigo we’re dealing with.]

From all this my big hope is now around the fact that the registered keeper was not the driver on the day in question. If the keeper was in the car as a passenger, I’m assuming that’s irrelevant, please correct me if I’m wrong.

This post has been edited by HappyHarry: Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 12:39
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gary Bloke
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 12:41
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,563



POPLA have adopted the same timescales for Byelaws ANPR tickets as already exists for ANPR tickets issued at car parks managed under contract law (where Schedule 4 of the POFA applies). You will find all the details here:
POPLA update on tickets issued for alleged breach of Byelaws

The relevant words are here:

Timescales for ticketing

The Railway Byelaws set out no timescales for the issue of a penalty for breach of Byelaws. However, the parking operator is timed out of prosecuting the motorist for breach of Byelaws after six months.
We consider a lack of timescales unreasonable to motorists in respect of appealing. If a driver or an owner did not receive notification of a parking charge or penalty until several months after an incident of alleged improper parking, they may have little or no memory of the event and their ability to appeal will be hampered.
POFA 2012 sets out timescales for the issuing of parking charge notices. While POFA 2012 does not apply on Railway Land, the standards have been put in place for situations similar to those in question. As those standards are used across the industry, and both parking operators and motorists are familiar with the standards, we consider it suitable that we use these standards as a guide when considering appeals against penalties issued on Railway Land.

What does this mean in practice? Penalty notice:
• Affixed to vehicle: this should be given by affixing it to the vehicle at the time the alleged breach of Byelaws is identified.
• Issued via post following a penalty notice affixed to vehicle: this should be given in the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the initial penalty notice was affixed to the vehicle.
• Issued via post without a penalty notice having previously being affixed to vehicle: this should be issued in the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
As with POFA 2012: We will presume a penalty notice sent by post, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gary Bloke
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 13:02
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,563



There are currently 4 methods of enforcement on railway land:-
i) Prosecution for breach of the byelaws – driver only.
ii) “Penalty notice” (type 1): in reality this is simply an offer to the driver to accept a sum of money in lieu of prosecution. Whether to accept the offer and pay, or refuse and risk prosecution, is entirely at the driver’s discretion; therefore no-one, whether owner, keeper or driver, is legally obliged (ie liable) to pay it.
iii) Parking charge notice: civil remedy for breach of contract – driver only.
iv) “Penalty notice” (type 2): an attempt to impose a pre-conviction penalty for breach of byelaws – owner only.

Only the Magistrate's Court can do (i) above. This very rarely, if ever, happens.
Method (iii) does not apply because railway car parks are not managed using contract law. That leaves methods (ii) and (iv).

The defence against method (ii) is to thank Indigo for their kind offer but to politely decline to accept it. Nobody can force you to accept an offered contract. Even the BPA have confirmed that in writing.

The defence against method (iv) is to point out that pre-conviction penalties (eg "The Owner is liable even though no-one has been convicted yet") are unlawful in this country. Defendants remain innocent until found guilty. Nobody can be punished before they have been found guilty. The recent advice (see link above) from Ms Walshe at the Department for Transport, which says that the Owner can be pursued, is utter claptrap. There is nothing in the Transport Act 2000 which says a third party can be penalised for the actions of the driver. There is no law making it a criminal offence to be the owner of a vehicle which is parked in breach of byelaws by someone else. Only the driver could ever be guilty and only if prosecuted in the Mags Court. The guidance provided by the DfT in June 2018 was completely wrong. Sadly Indigo, ZZPS, POPLA, ITAL and the BPA don't seem to get that yet.

You could also mention in your appeal that GTR's contract for parking management is with Indigo Park Services UK Ltd. Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd is not party to that contract and so has no legal standing to manage any of the car parks listed in the contract, nor to issue penalties.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 14:03
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



HH, the way to construct your appeal would be a series of 'if, then' arguments.

eg, 1. The land is byelaw land,

if it wasn't then

2. The PPC failed para 9(5), delivery within 14 days,

if they had managed that, then,

3. They failed to offer a prominent POPLA code, etc., etc.

There are so many arguments that you are virtually guaranteed an uncontested win.

No need to panic. Enjoy the experience and the education!


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sun, 23 Dec 2018 - 14:09
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Yes

Always throw into the appeal that Park Solutions doesn't have a contract

Include any evidence such as Indigo's or the train company's website, or a parking ticket that has the wrong VAT or company registration number

I have known Park Solutions to include a Park Services contract in evidence to POPLA

The contract didn't allow Indigo to take legal action which is useful ammo to use later in response to such threats
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 10:24
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



At the start of this saga, I was advised to complain to the British Parking Association that Indigo was directing me to ITAL as an independent appeal service, not POPLA, letting BPA know that the site is new and only refers to Indigo. I said I am concerned about its expertise and independence.


This is the BPA’s response:

“I can confirm that Indigo Park Solutions is a member of our Approved Operator Scheme which means that they are required to adhere to our Code of Practice. Should you wish to view our Code of Practice this can be found using the following link: http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Docu...anuary_2018.pdf

“Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice by members of our Approved Operator Scheme where evidence can be supplied.

“If your initial appeal to the operator has been rejected and the charge was issued at a railway location (and therefore under Railway Byelaws), you should be provided with details on how you can further appeal the charge via ITAL who are an independent appeals service.”

I’ll post my draft ITAL /POPLA appeal here for comment when I’ve written it.


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gary Bloke
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 11:45
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 488
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,563



The BPA seem to think they can publish a set of rules and then they can ignore those same rules when they feel like it. This is the problem with self regulation. The BPA is funded by the parking companies so it's not hard to see where their loyalties lie. All i can suggest is that you copy the BPA reply to info@popla.com and let POPLA know that ITAL are eating their lunch.

You can mention that ITAL appear to have no experience of parking law because they have only ever dealt with penalty fares in the past. Where are they getting their experts on parking law? Who is training their people?

I am also very concerned that ITAL are not independent. This is a company that sells prosecution software to parking operators! The Indigo logo is displayed on the ITAL appeals website! Why would an independent appeals service need to display the logo of the complainant on its website?

Where are the rules by which ITAL will make decisions on appeals? POPLA has published its rules so why not ITAL? Without having any defined decision guidelines, ITAL will be the kangaroo court that Indigo wants it to be.

This post has been edited by Gary Bloke: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 13:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:20
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



I think the appeal may need to go to both.

You have, what appears to be, a valid POPLA code that you don't want to risk expiring. You may not get another one.

This thread gets more and more interesting as it goes on!

EDIT: As an aside, it's interesting to note that the only reference to POPLA, in the BPA CoP link above, is in the glossary on page 4. All other references are to 'IAS.' Are BPA trying to muddy the waters?

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:27


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ggreg
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:26
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,370



As a point of interest, were you to video (using your smartphone) a machine rejecting payment coins and card would that video be a strong defence in court (assuming that there was only one machine on the site).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
freddy1
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 18:36
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,337
Joined: 4 Jan 2007
Member No.: 9,897



QUOTE (ggreg @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:26) *
As a point of interest, were you to video (using your smartphone) a machine rejecting payment coins and card would that video be a strong defence in court (assuming that there was only one machine on the site).


no , because alternate methods of payment were available , plus if you were unable to complete , you should have left and parked elsewhere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 20:00
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



I think this is a seriously interesting thread - with some major ramifications. But the thread title isn't attracting the additional heavyweight contributions a more appropriate one might.

Could the OP amend the thread title (if that's possible) or ask a Mod to help to do so, to take the focus away from a rather run-of-the-mill 'Ticket Machine Not Working' title to one such as 'Indigo and the BPA change the rules for railway parking second stage appeal cases - POPLA bypassed again' ..... or similar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 20:13
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



+1


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 21:21
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



Am I allowed to change the heading? I’m happy to. I had no idea when I joined the forum a few weeks ago that I had such an interesting case mellow.gif


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 21:27
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE (HappyHarry @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 21:21) *
Am I allowed to change the heading? I’m happy to. I had no idea when I joined the forum a few weeks ago that I had such an interesting case mellow.gif

I'm not regular enough on here to know the technicalities of posting on PePiPoo, my main focus (almost 22,000 posts) is on MSE. But I'm sure it's ok to change a thread title, whether that is possible for you to do yourself, or whether you need the help of a forum moderator, I'm not sure.

Try hitting the 'Report' button and see if you can get it organised via that route.

This post has been edited by Umkomaas: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 21:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 19:30
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



Following days of reading and researching, here is my draft appeal. Still not sure whether to send it simultaneously to both ITAL and POPLA. I welcome all comments, thank you in advance.

PCN #: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ITAL verification code: xxxxxxxxxx

On 6 December, Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd, issued a penalty charge notice highlighting that vehicle [registration licence], had been recorded via their automated number plate recognition system for failing to obtain a valid ticket or voucher. As the registered keeper of the vehicle [registration licence], I wish to appeal the £100 penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by Indigo.

I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1. No Keeper Liability
2. The Notice to Keeper is incorrect
3. Provision of unredacted landowner contract for Indigo to:
- manage the car park
- issue charges
- take court action in their own name
4. No proprietary interest in the land
5. Signage
6. Unfair terms


1. No Keeper Liability
Indigo’s declared position via their correspondence is based on railway byelaws, which can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws

The Railway Byelaws state, under 14 (4), that: “In England and Wales (i) The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area.” Accordingly, under the Byelaws the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay any outstanding penalty for contravention of the Byelaws.

From the evidence provided by the operator, I believe ITAL will be unable to determine that it has identified the appellant in this case, as the owner of the vehicle. It is a fact that the owner has not been identified. The POFA positively enshrines the right of a keeper not to name the driver nor be 'assumed' to be that individual and nor can it be reasonably assumed in the absence of any evidence, that a keeper or driver is necessarily the owner.

Therefore, in this case, the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing for the charge is in fact liable:

- ITAL cannot lawfully 'presume' that a keeper may be held as the owner, and
- Henry Greenslade has confirmed that ITAL cannot lawfully 'presume' that a keeper may be held as if they 'might' be the driver.

As the burden of proof rests with the operator in both showing that the appellant has not complied with terms in place on the land, AND showing that the appellant is liable for the parking charge issued, ITAL will be unable to reach any lawful and factual conclusion regarding a keeper appellant like myself being liable, without the POFA having been followed.

2. The Notice to Keeper is incorrect
The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of the BPA’s Code of Practice.
The Code of Practice states:
“The notice must be given by:
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
The relevant period for the purposes is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

The alleged offence took place on 25 November. Indigo’s letter to owner is dated 6 December, it was posted through the Royal Mail and was received on 10 December, 15 days after 25 November.

3. The provision of an unredacted landowner contract for Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd to:
- manage the car park
- issue charges
- take court action in their own name
With no standing or authority to neither pursue charges or form contracts with drivers, Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd has 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 send penalty notices, merely acting as agents for the Train Operator. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that they are entitled or assigned any title/rights to demand money from me.
Indigo are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed and dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. 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 the Operator 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 any landholder). 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 otherwise there is no authority.
Railway Land is Not ‘Relevant Land’:-
Since byelaws apply to railway land, the land is not relevant land within the meaning of PoFA and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. I ask the Operator for strict proof otherwise if they disagree with this point and would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Rail authorities that this land is not already covered by bylaws.

4. No proprietary interest in the land
I believe that Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd 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, Indigo Park Solutions UK Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has neither automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Indigo to strict proof to provide ITAL and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Indigo 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 to Indigo. In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then ITAL should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

5. Signage
The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice and was not seen/ able to be seen before parking - so there was no valid contract formed between Indigo and the driver. There was no offer, consideration or acceptance flowing between this Operator and the driver which could have created any contract for the driver to pay this extortionate sum over and above the correct tariff.

In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Indigo have no signage with full terms which could be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. (as per attached photographs)

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18 of the BPA code of practice. They were not clear and intelligible as required.
The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:
“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

It was dark when the driver entered the car park. The sign at the entrance to the premises is obscured / rendered illegible by being placed at low height, containing small lettering so as to not be seen when approaching as well as not being readable/legible to a driver moving in a car when entering the premises. Any alleged contract is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, such as when the driver walks away and past a sign (on the opposite side of the car park) when entering the station platform area, as this is too late.
There were no signs or road markings to indicate that the area was private property or in any way restricted, and no signage indicating the area was private before entering the road. The requirement to pay £100 is not clear and prominent as the Supreme Court commented on in Beavis. Such an onerous obligation should be the most prominent part of the sign, as is stated in Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule.

6. Unfair terms
The charge being claimed by Indigo is a punitive sum. The ticket machine was not working. The driver tried paying by coin and card. After inputting their details for the second time, the driver believed they had paid, the machine took their details, but failed to process them.
The following refers: Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999': ''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''

Test of fairness:
''A term is unfair if...contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.

5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

It is wholly unreasonable to attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum. Indigo require strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described, does not cause a significant imbalance to a person's detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

If a contract was formed between the driver and Operator it would be a simple financial consumer contract. An offer of parking for a set sum was made in return for a small payment. This makes plain that the sum being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors or minor underpayment, and is consequently unenforceable.

As this is a simple financial contract any claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If The Operator believes that inadequate payment was made (which their PCN fails to make clear) their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. The charge is clearly extravagant and unconscionable compared to the supposed unpaid tariff. If The Operator believes their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss I demand they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this has been calculated.

The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss but an unenforceable penalty as Parking Eye v Beavis can easily be distinguished from this case.
I would refer the ITAL adjudicator to the persuasive remarks of Sir Timothy Lloyd in the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Parking Eye v Barry Beavis. In that situation the penalty charge was justified on the basis that it was necessary to deter motorists staying longer than allowed to facilitate the turnover of free parking places. It was determined that the contract was not a financial one in that there was no economic transaction between ParkingEye and the motorist. This was not changed by the later judgment in the Supreme Court.

This is in stark contrast to the present case where there is an economic transaction between the Operator and the driver, and no restriction on the time of stay was made provided payment of the tariff was made.

This car park is no different to any other commercial enterprise. There can be no argument of commercial justification allowing what would otherwise be a clear penalty simply because a small payment was purportedly not made when the vehicle would otherwise have been welcome to park as it did.
A contractual term which imposes the requirement to pay a disproportionately large sum for failing to pay a far smaller one is the very essence of an unlawful penalty. Analysis of paragraphs 43-51 from the judgment clearly demonstrates that the Court of Appeal would have considered the charge in this case as an unenforceable penalty. This case can be clearly distinguished from that of ParkingEye v Beavis the judgment in which is irrelevant in this situation.

Any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in that case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge justified to ensure motorists left within two hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility and Parking Eye as that was their only income. As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification as the car was welcome to park as it did in return for a small payment to the Operator who is already making income from the site.

I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.




--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 1 Jan 2019 - 21:21
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I'd send to both
Popla should allow it and if ITAL don't it adds to the pressure on the boa to sort their operator out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 13:58
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Send it to both on 9th January so that it reaches them just before the deadline.

Don't forget, as well as putting in a solid appeal, which is very good, by the way, you also want to run the clock down to timeout any possibility of action under the rail byelaws.

Amend the heading to read 'ITAL/POPLA verification code xxxxx'

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 13:59


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 14:51
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



Thank you Cabbyman. I appreciate your time and advice.


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 00:34
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Still not sure whether to send it simultaneously to both ITAL and POPLA.


I would send it to POPLA in a day or so, so that one is the first/main avenue taken.

And then to ITAL a week later.

Should be interesting!

But the appeal you have found is ancient!! NONONO. The point about 'no landowner authority' is not the current one we use and this need deleting:

QUOTE
6. Unfair terms


Get rid, find a more recent one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 09:36
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I would send it to POPLA in a day or so, so that one is the first/main avenue taken.
And then to ITAL a week later.


That has an interesting angle because Indigo will know by this time that the POPLA appeal is in plea

Does it :

1 Tell ITAL it's already been appealed to POPLA ?
2 Tell POPLA that the code was issued for ITAL and the appeal is invalid ?
3 Both so that neither appeal will be considered and the OP can no longer lose the Notice in the system for a few weeks ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:04
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here