Ticket for a space I already pay for Options

[Phaedra]

So I have received now two tickets for a space that I pay for in advance. It is a private carpark belonging to a flat block and I pay every quarter in full in advance and have receipts. There is a private parking company (part of the BPA) that requires permits visible. I got these tickets when my permit was on the armrest between the driver and passenger seats, it was very visible, I don't have tinted windows. When it's on the dashboard, it runs the risk of slipping into the large gap between the glass and the dash, or flying out the window in the wind.
My question is: is this enforceable? I have already paid for the space so the permit should not even be necessary. Even so - it *was* visible. I think I have a good argument if this goes to court - there is no cost to the landowner whatsoever as it is my permenant rented space.

[Advertisement]

[cabbyman]

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What did you write to POPLA? What other surprises are you hiding?

[Phaedra]

Oh no - totally different year, ticket and vehicle

[cabbyman]

Ah, OK.

I personally don't believe there's much to be gained from delaying things at this stage. However, Hoohoo may have a good reason so wait for that explanation and then make up your own mind.

[Steve_999]

Many thanks for that,
I have written to Popla before and they rejected the letter as it was 'to far away from the ticket issue date' what exactly is this time limit?
Will the 28th August still be within it?

Have you checked the POPLA code? If you Google "popla code checker" and go to the Parking Cowboy's site, you can check the code for when it expires.

[Phaedra]

Where will the Popla code be, on the letter or on the website? Are the codes ticket-specific?

This post has been edited by Phaedra: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 - 22:44

[Steve_999]

Ah - you will not have received it yet as you have only just got the NTK. When you appeal that, and it is rejected, you should be issued with a POPLA code (which you should check as above).

And, yes, you should receive one per ticket. Treat them as separate all the way as it costs the parking company per appeal!

This post has been edited by Steve_999: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 - 22:53

[Phaedra]

So should I appeal it now, or wait till the 21st like hoohoo says?

[Gan]

Hoohoo's advice is very reliable

The letter that you've received isn't a valid Notice to Keeper and it's a massive error

If you appeal too early, Premier might spot the mistake and send a correct version just within the 56 days deadline

This post has been edited by Gan: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 - 08:23

[hoohoo]

Yes, just to clarify, you have 28 days to appeal from the date on their letter, so appealing on 21 August is well within that limit.
They have between days 28 and 56 from the date of parking to serve a valid notice to keeper, which runs out on the 28 august.

So you appeal on 21st. Get proof of posting or screenshot or save your email, depending how you appeal.

They reject your appeal with a POPLA code. You have another 28 days to appeal to POPLA from the date on their rejection letter.

Sometime after 28 august you appeal to POPLA. By then it is too late for them to issue a valid NTK

[The Rookie]

They reject your appeal with a POPLA code. You have another 28 days to appeal to POPLA from the date on their rejection letter.

Within 28 days of the day number in the POPLA code, which with some PPC's can be some time before the date on the letter (cheating you, not all guv, not us, honest mate).

[Croupe]

Hello - I am the original op Phaedra - it's been so long that my membership expired.
So as an update to my situation - I have come to realise that because of the Beavis vs. Parking Eye case, POPLA are now TOTALLY USELESS as a service as they are simply rejecting every appeal 'because of the Beavis vs. Parking Eye landmark case'
So I have two tickets for the space that I pay in advance for and Remier Park have now sent me the pictured letter. Where do I stand? It seems very likely that they'll take me to court because they see this bleeding flipping Beavis case as precedent.
Here's impotent POPLA's case report (one of the most important things to note is that PP's OWN EVIDENCE ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE INCLUDED A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PERMIT THROUGH THE WINDOW:

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that on the 3 July 2015, BF62 DSE was issued a parking charge notice as there was no permit on display.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that his company Fox & Sons pay for two spaces quarterly in advance. The appellant states that there no loss to the landowner. The appellant states that the permit was visible through the window. The appellant states that the permit was not displayed on the dashboard as he has lost permits between the windscreen and dashboard before.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states; “Warning private land. Vehicles parking with a valid permit or ticket fully on display in the windscreen area. No exceptions. If you enter or park on this land contriving the above terms & conditions you are agreeing to pay: Parking charge notice £100.00” Although I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that his permit was visible through the window, the signage clearly outlines the operator’s terms and conditions and states that permit must be displayed in the windscreen area. By not displaying the permit in the windscreen area the appellant has not complied with the operator’s terms and conditions. The appellant states that there was no loss to the landowner. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court.

[ostell]

This is, as usual, a complete farce of a response. POPLA are rattling on about charging overstaying motorists and this was not the case for your situation therefore Beavis does not apply.

And the supreme court decision had not been handed down when you submitted your appeal.

These POPLA staff so completely misunderstand the basics.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 - 15:31

[Gan]

Have you downloaded a copy of the photograph showing your permit or is it included in Premier's evidence pack to POPLA ?
If they're still up there, download them now

As you've discovered, some of the POPLA assessors are incompetent and use Beavis as a template reply whenever "not a genuine loss" is mentioned without bothering to look at the other points

You can inform Premier that you're rejecting the POPLA decision but the wording depends on the answers to the above questions

As an aside, Premier are known to be economical with the truth in their evidence to POPLA

This post has been edited by Gan: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 - 15:44

[Croupe]

I received a message from POPLA saying that they were delaying the adjudication of my case until the final Supreme Court decision had been made. Then they sent me this:
The Supreme Court has now issued its decision in relation to Beavis v ParkingEye.

As previously advised, POPLA placed this appeal on hold until we had considered our position in relation to this.


We have now considered our position and will allow both sides to provide any further comments or evidence regarding the Supreme Court’s decision for our consideration.


We asked parking operators for their responses first, so we were able to share them with appellants. The parking operator provided no further evidence for your appeal.

Please provide your comments or additional within seven days as responses after this point will not be considered.

This was my appeal:

I have been closely monitoring the progression of Beavis vs. Parking Eye and read the Press Summary. The original context of the ticket Beavis received fundamentally differs from my own case and is therefore not relevant: Beavis received the PCN for parking for a period of time that exceeded the two-hour stay limit of the enforced car park. He breached the contract in place that required two-hour limited parking. His argument against Parking Eye was not that he had caused no breach, but rather that he was charged an excessive amount for the breach.

My case differs from this entirely. The carpark has no time limit, the space is leased directly from the management company and paid in advance of its leasing, and my permit was within the vehicle. From a rental point of view - the space belongs to me. The entire environment of the carpark fundamentally differs from that of a limited-time arrangement, thus the Beavis case is barely connected other than relating to a private parking enforcement firm. Only one of my arguments related to the charge being excessive.

To reiterate:

There was No breach of contract – There are clear demonstrable facts that I am permitted to park in this space. My permit was within the vehicle to prove that I am permitted for the convenience of the parking agent to identify me as a leaseholder of the space. It is untenable for the parking company to demand that the permit be in one specific position on display - it was visible. However, the permit is not the issue, whether permit in place or not - I am legally renting this space and paying all costs to do so in advance.

Permission was granted – In any case where a car is parked in a car park with permission of the principal (e.g. the landowner) - this effectively overrides the contract with the parking company. I have a right to peaceful enjoyment of that space irrespective of any latter arrangement with a parking company. Beavis had no such permission to exceed the timescale limit of the car park he parked in, he had no arrangement with that car park or the space he was in.

In my opinion that's a pretty airtight appeal. Meaning POPLA is now totally useless a service.

Here is the screenshot of the evidence photo on their website showing the permit on the central unit:

[unicorn47]

Another stick to beat them with.

Mitigation of loss

The rule of mitigation requires a claimant to take steps to minimise its loss and to avoid taking unreasonable steps that increase its loss. An injured party cannot recover damages for any loss (whether caused by a breach of contract or breach of duty) which could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps. The claimant is said to have a "duty to mitigate". However, this is not a duty enforceable by anyone, rather it is a recognition that if the claimant fails to do so its damages recovery will be affected by that failure.

Regardless of the t&c’s your permit was on display. The company have suffered no loss.

It strengthens your case as the PPC has pictures with the permit on display.

[Croupe]

I need to mention that I have two tickets, only one included evidence of the permit on display, for the other ticket - I took a photo of it on display myself.

[Gan]

Did they submit that photo in their evidence to POPLA ?

[Croupe]

(Another thing to mention (although I doubt it's relevant) - this car was stolen on the 2nd January and never recovered).

So where shall I go from here?

I am unaware if they submitted photographs - however I submitted the screenshot you see there when I appealed to POPLA.

POPLA stated in their rejection:

Although I acknowledge the appellant’s comments that his permit was visible through the window, the signage clearly outlines the operator’s terms and conditions and states that permit must be displayed in the windscreen area.

PP's info to POPLA was:

I enclose copies of the signage at this site. The Appellant has not denied seeing said signage. The Appellant has advised that the company he works for rents this space and that his permit to park is displayed in the centre console, both visible and readable from the driver and passenger windows. The signage clearly states that vehicles parking with a valid permit or ticket full on display in the windscreen area. No exceptions. From the photographic evidence, there is no permit displayed in the windscreen area and no permit can be seen from the passenger or drivers windows. It is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that they have read and parked in compliance with the terms and conditions. On this occasion, the Appellant did not. We request that the Appellant's appeal be refused.

So it looks like they only submitted signage photos, not photos of the car.

This post has been edited by Croupe: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 - 15:56

[Gan]

To Premier

Dear Sir

Ref *****

Thank You for your letter dated **** regarding the decision by POPLA not to uphold my appeal

I am writing to inform you that I am exercising my right to reject this decision and will not make the payment you have demanded.

I note your statement that you will begin court proceedings if payment is not made by 8th April and that the POPLA decision will form part of your case.

I am somewhat baffled by the Assessor's summary that "no permit can be seen from the driver's or passenger's window".
The photograph that I downloaded from your website clearly shows the permit on the centre console.
The Assessor either failed to understand its significance because you did not make it clear, or you did not submit it with your evidence pack and thereby misled the Assessor.

The photograph will of course form part of my own evidence in the event of legal proceedings.
The Assessor would only mention that the permit was not visible through the windows if you had stated the fact in your evidence.
If you did not include the picture in your evidence pack to POPLA, I will invite the court to infer the obvious reason.

Yours Faithfully

This post has been edited by Gan: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 - 17:23

[Croupe]

Many thanks for that.
I am fairly certain that I will have a very good chance in court to defend my case. I will send this letter to them tomorrow.
Will the next letter from them be a summons?
How much could the court costs be if I lose or will it just be the fine...