PCN for not displaying ticket correctly Options

[stevienicknacks]

Hi, I recently parked at a local sports and social club. My friend had arrived just before me so bought 2 tickets, 1 for each car. I placed the ticket in the car window but I either accidently placed it the wrong way around or the wind blew it (was windy). Either way it was displayed in the window (which they have acknowledged(see attached picture) but it is in violation of their "rules”.
Thanks

Stevienicknacks

This post has been edited by stevienicknacks: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 14:43

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

Attached File(s)

 Response_letter.pdf ( 241.56K ) Number of downloads: 85

 

[Advertisement]

[stevienicknacks]

Found an old thread, will try to copy it/apply it to my situation

This post has been edited by stevienicknacks: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 10:57

[stevienicknacks]

First stab at the appeal to POPLA. Any thoughts? I will obviously attach the photo evidence. thanks

Verification number: *********
Park Watch Parking PCN no ********
This appeal is in relation to a Parking Charge Notice left on the windscreen of Vehicle registration DH66JHO by Park watch for the alleged contravention of ‘Failure to display a valid parking ticket’. I wish to appeal this notice for the following reasons:
1) A valid ticket was displayed in the window of the vehicle.
2) Misleading and/or unclear signage
3) No evidence of ownership or legal basis to form contracts to charge for parking
4) The amount demanded is a penalty


1) A valid ticket was displayed in the window of the vehicle, Park watch have taken photographic evidence(below) supporting this and have admitted payment was made based on the evidence sent to them. The ticket was displayed in the window, however due to strong winds the ticket was flipped over. The notice in the car park does not state which way around the ticket must be displayed. I also have a witness who will testify that a valid ticket was purchased and displayed in the window.
2) The signage only states “always display a valid pay and display ticket”, this requirement was adhered to. The remaining text on the notice boards are very small and hard to read.

3) Park watch offers no evidence of ownership of the land or specifics of a contract with the landowner which would give a legal basis to form a contract with drivers for the levying of charges. I would refer to the precedents formed in Vehicle Control Services vs. HMRC, which ruled against these kinds of business practices. Should Park Watch choose to contest this appeal I challenge them to prove that the contract held with the landowner entitles them in law to form a contract with third parties parking on the land.


4) A further charge of £60 for a stay of around 3 hours in a car park is clearly punitive, especially considering that the stated daily charge was paid and evidence exists to prove this.


In light of these points, I request POPLA to uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

This post has been edited by stevienicknacks: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 10:55

[stevienicknacks]

Any thoughts?

[nosferatu1001]

In under a day?

Initial thought is it is about 1/4 the lenght of most appeals and 4) will see them hit the Beavis button.

[stevienicknacks]

thanks for the feedback. The appeal that I found/copied was a lot longer but had detail relating to POFA 2012 which I removed.

This post has been edited by stevienicknacks: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 11:53

[stevienicknacks]

I found this appeal used in relation to a "fluttering ticket", does this look relevant in my case? Its likely that the wind blew the ticket, it was a non-sticky ticket.

Enclosed is a copy of the Pay & Display ticket that I purchased and displayed for inspection. It can clearly be seen that I paid the appropriate fee and that the ticket was valid when the officer inspected my vehicle. Unfortunately, at some point during my absence from the vehicle, the ticket somehow became dislodged from where it had been clearly displayed and fell into the foot well. I accept that your officer could not have known this and acted accordingly.

However, now that the ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear that I did not avoid payment of the parking fee or that I had parked beyond time paid for. The only purpose a ticket needs to be displayed is to enable an officer to distinguish between those that have paid for parking and those that have not and those who have exceeded the time paid for. The ticket produced clearly shows that had your officer seen my ticket at the time of inspection that there would be no need to serve a penalty charge notice.

The only remaining issue is whether the fact that the ticket was not clearly displayed at the time of inspection warrants the council taking a hard line and upholding the penalty charge. I believe that for the council to take such a stance would be contrary to the advice of the DfT and the Secretary of State.

Paragraph 85 from the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities advises;

85. An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point
throughout the CPE process. It can do this even when an undoubted
contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the
circumstances of the case. Under general principles of public law, authorities
have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise
discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest

This statutory guidance is given legal authority by section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 whereby statute instructs that the council must have regard to this guidance. Any failure to have regard to this guidance is a procedural impropriety as defined by regulation 4(5) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007;

4(5) In these Regulations “procedural impropriety” means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 Act, by the General Regulations or by these Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum and includes in particular—

As a valid ticket has been presented for inspection it is clear to any reasonable person that it would not be in the public interest to penalise a person who paid the required fee and did nothing to the detriment of the public interest. I cannot think of a more appropriate situation where paragraph 85 applies than this. I therefore politely request that the council act fairly and proportionately in this matter and exercise their discretion sensibly and reasonably by cancelling this penalty charge. It would be best for all if we can resolve this without the need to seek independent adjudication.

[Jlc]

No, that's for council tickets...

[stevienicknacks]

Ahh. Clearly im totally clueless 🙄

[stevienicknacks]

Latest version.

This appeal is in relation to a Parking Charge Notice left on the windscreen of Vehicle registration $$$$$$$$$ by Park watch for the alleged contravention of ‘Failure to display a valid parking ticket’. I wish to appeal this notice for the following reasons:
1) A valid ticket was displayed in the window of the vehicle.
2). No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers.
3). Unreasonable & Unfair Charge - a penalty that cannot be recovered.

1) A valid ticket was displayed in the window of the vehicle, Park watch have taken photographic evidence(below) supporting this and have admitted payment was made in their response letter, based on the evidence sent to them. The ticket was displayed in the window, however due to strong winds the ticket was flipped over; this ticket did not have an adhesive back to it, “fluttering” type and therefore could not be firmly affixed to the windscreen. The ticket that they provided did not assist in complying with the conditions of parking due to it not being “sticky” of attachable to the windscreen in windy conditions. The notice in the car park does not state which way around the ticket must be displayed it has a small note that says “always display a valid pay and display ticket”, it does not state that the front of the ticket must be clearly visible. I also have a witness who will testify that a valid ticket was purchased and displayed in the window. The individual also has a 2nd ticket purchased at the same time as this ticket (image attached) for his vehicle.

2). No standing to pursue charges in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers.
Park Watch have no standing as they are an agent, not the landowner. They also have no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts.
I put Park Watch to strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract. Even if a basic site agreement is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Park Watch and their client, containing nothing that could impact on a third party customer. Also the contract must be with the landowner - not a managing agent nor retailer nor any facility on site which is not the landholder - and the contract must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP. Such a contract must show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that Park Watch can form contracts with drivers in their own right and have the assignment of rights to enforce the matter in court in their name. A witness statement or site agreement will not suffice as evidence as these are generally pre-signed photocopies wholly unrelated to the contract detail and signed off by a person who may never have seen the contract at all. I insist that the whole contract is required to be produced, in order to ensure whether it is with the actual landowner, whether money changes hands which must be factored into the sum charged, and to see all terms and conditions, restrictions, charges, grace period and the locus standi of this operator.
3). Unreasonable & Unfair Contract Terms - a penalty that cannot be recovered.
The terms that the Operator in this case are alleging gave rise to a contract were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance to my potential detriment. There is no contract between the Operator & motorist but even if POPLA believes there was likely to be a contract then it is unfair and not recoverable.
This charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says:
‘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.’
In the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:-
''5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.''
The Office of Fair Trading, Unfair Contract Terms Guidance:
Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens
''18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However... a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract.''
I put Park Watch to strict proof regarding all of the above contentions and if they do not address any point, then it is deemed accepted

This post has been edited by stevienicknacks: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 09:28

[stevienicknacks]

Any last thoughts before I give this a try?

[nosferatu1001]

No idea wher eyou got three form. its ancient, especially as the UTCR were replaced by the CRA2015 - 3 years ago!

How are you finding OLD appeals? 2018 ONLY

[stevienicknacks]

Ahh ok, no idea. It was the only one I could find that related to a ticket not being displayed correctly...Ill try again...

[The Rookie]

It doesn't have to relate to Ticket, you add that as the last point, you need the standing and signage correctly appealed and add the extra one for the fact you paid and displayed as required.

[stevienicknacks]

Hi, Park Watch have now submitted their reply to my POPLA appeal. I have attached a link to the images attached. I have a few days to make any more comments so if you can see anything wrong or find anything I can respond with that would be much appreciated. It was suggested by someone earlier in the thread that the working of their original response acknowledged that I had actually placed a valid ticket in the window even though it was the wrong way around). they are denying this and I cant actually see how their wording confirms this (if you can point that out it would be appreciated). The basis of their whole case is "no ticket" rather than not displaying correctly, they have obviously called out that the ticket was not displayed in the way they require, however the main document suggests "no ticket". I have a witness that a ticket was purchased and displayed (back to front due to the wind) so is that not enough of a defence?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a1moz33cm2izijq/P...watch2.pdf?dl=0

This is all I can think of to add to the appeal at the moment:

The main point that Park Watch are claiming is that I did not have a ticket, “no ticket” is the basis of their claim. This is documented on all of the paperwork they have sent through. I have evidence and a witness that I did have a valid ticket and I displayed it. Unfortunately due to the “non-sticky” nature of the ticket supplied by Park Watch the wind blew it so that it was back to front, however it was still displayed in the front windscreen. I have a witness that will testify that he purchased the ticket on my behalf along with his own ticket for his vehicle (photo evidence of both tickets has been supplied to this appeal, I have both tickets available for viewing). He also witnessed me display the ticket in my front windscreen.

I suggest that the requirement to always display a ticket noted by Park Watch’s signage is more relevant to a situation where no ticket has been displayed anywhere in the vehicle. Obviously in that situation it is possible the individual didn’t actually purchase a ticket. This situation is different, I had a purchased ticket displayed in the windscreen therefore that aspect of their rules does not apply in this case. The signage does not say “always display a ticket the correct way around” or “so that the date and time is visible to the attendant”. Clearly an attendant will question if the ticket is valid at that point but on producing the valid ticket the claim should then end.

This post has been edited by stevienicknacks: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 10:35

[nosferatu1001]

"only the back of the ticket"

Ticket can only be valid ticket, as otherwise it is just a piece of paper to the parking company. They have described it a s a ticket, they therefore acknowledge it was a ticket.

Did you supply a witness statement tot that effect to POPLA, from your witness, or just state you had one? POPLA theoreticaly relies on evidence, so a statement would have been required to back up YOUR version

GO through every point of your appeal
Anything they do not EXPLICITLY addres -> tell popla that this means the operator ahs accepted that appeal point and the appeal must be upheld
ANtying they address but do so by lying - point the lie out
Anything they address but it doesnt actually address it - point out HOW it doesnt

DOes the ticekt have anything on the back that could be verirfied? Usually they have a serial number on both sides.

[stevienicknacks]

Thanks for the reply. In my original appeal I informed POPLA that I have a witness who is prepared to provide a statement, I also named him and sent them a copy of his ticket. I can add the statement to this part of the appeal. The ticket doesn't have a serial number on the back unfortunately but it is clearly one of their tickets (Notes on rear that the ticket can be taken into the Comrades club for a full refund if drinks are bought at the bar, also notes about it being clearly displayed).

Ill follow your notes and see what else I can find in their response.

[nosferatu1001]

There is no "this part of the appeal"
You cannot add new evidence. You know this, because thats what the POPLA site TELLS YOU explicitly.

Just point out they acknowledge it was their ticket, so far from "no ticket" they should have issued a PCN for "could not verify ticket", but they didnt do so.

[stevienicknacks]

ok great thanks. Just spoke to POPLA and they have said that I can send them the witness statement because I have referred to the witness in my original appeal notes and had sent them an image of his ticket.

This post has been edited by stevienicknacks: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:21

[nosferatu1001]

Thats unusual for POPLA - grab it with all hands!
Potnetially refer to the call at xyz as to why you can append "new" evidence.

[stevienicknacks]

Yes, ill defo refer to it. As you mentioned, he basically said that if its totally new evidence they would disregard it. However because I have already named the witness(stating that he is prepared to make a statement) in my original info and sent the images of both tickets that they would consider it as part of the case. The system doesn't allow attachments at this point so he just said to email it to their main email address and reference my case number.