Hi,

I'd appreciate some advice on how to proceed under the circumstances I'm about to outline.

A PPC named Total Carpark Management Limited placed a PCN on my vehicle at Star City in Birmingham. The centre has free parking but is notorious for renting huge chunks of the car park spaces to fair rides, circuses, etc Anyway, late last week, I visited one evening and found the car park short of spaces because of some fair rides that recently popped up. I drove round, found a space in a secluded corner next to a van that looked like it belonged to one of the fair ride operators, went off to patronize one of the other centre's occupants, came back and found a PCN on my car stating an offence of "Not parked within an allocated parking bay"

The PCN said: "The vehicle was parked on private property in a manner where the driver agreed to pay a parking charge as displayed on the signage. Notice of the charge has been clearly displayed in and around the site. The period of parking to which this charge relates is the period immediately preceding the "Time of Issue"
A parking charge of £100 is due within 28 days of the date of issue, which will be reduced etc etc..
Failure to provide payment of the full amount within 28 days of the date of issue may result in the vehicle keeper's details being requested from the DVLA under the reasonable cause criteria of recovering unpaid parking charges and may be followed by further enforcement action where our Debt Recovery Agent will be instructed, incurring additional costs which may result in County Court Action. Photographic evidence can be viewed by visiting our website. Payment is now due to Total Carpark Management Ltd being the creditor and entitled to recover the same."

The PCN then went on to say how I could appeal and if my appeal failed I'd be provided details on how to appeal to IAS.

Now, I use a company car, so I couldn't ignore the PCN. So, I replied with a letter that had served me well on two previous occasions. A copy of the letter is provided below.

I got a reply to my letter saying that since my letter wasn't an appeal, no response is required from them and that they're also not with the BPA but with IPC. Now I could have sworn that when I first viewed their website before sending the letter, they had a BPA logo on there, but that's now gone.

In any case, I'd please like some advice on how to proceed with this, especially in light of the recent ParkingEye vs Beavis ruling.

Many thanks


********************************************************************************
*********************************

This is a formal challenge with respect to the issue of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper as set out in the current BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice B.22
On December 18, 2015 I was the driver of a Vehicle with registration number XXXXXX, and your Parking Charge Notice – Notice to Keeper was in reference to the vehicle “Not Parked Within An Allocated Parking Bay”

I am writing to advise you that I dispute the parking charge, especially its disproportionate and punitive nature. Furthermore, I also dispute the entire basis under which it was issued. You are asking me to pay you £100 but have failed to show that I am legally obliged to do so.

In any case, before I decide how to deal with your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper, I will be obliged if you would first answer all the questions and deal with all the issues I have set out below. In this respect I remind you of the obligations set out in the current Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.
Once you have addressed my concerns below, I will be able to make an informed decision on how I deal with the matter.

1. Your parking charge amount claim.

Please explain on which of the following grounds your claim is based:
(i) Damages for trespass
(ii) Damages for breach of contract
(iii) A contractual sum

You claim in your PCN that I agreed to pay a parking charge as displayed on the signage in and around the site. I deny this claim and your PCN showed no proof supporting your claim. If it is your intention to base your claim on a contractual sum that is now due, then please show proof that a valid contract was made between us according to the Contracts Act, 1950. I remind you this stipulates that a valid contract must have the following elements. (a) Offer (b) Acceptance © Consideration (d) Intention To Create Legal Relations (e) Capacity

2. Your loss.

Following on from above, if it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages; please give me a full breakdown of the actual losses which evidences that this parking charge is a true reflection of the damages caused solely by the alleged parking contravention.

3. Your status & Ownership of premises.

Your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper mentions Total Car Park Management Ltd as the creditor and manager of the car park. It says nothing about the actual owner of the premises. If you are not the owner of the car park, please tell me who owns it as I wish to send them a copy of this letter.

4. Contractual Authority (as required by BPA Ltd AOS CoP B.7)

If you are not the owner of the car park, please provide me with a copy of the contract between your company and the landowner/landholder that provides the necessary
contractual written authority for the issue and enforcement of your Parking Charge Notice - Notice to Keeper.

5. Signage.

If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please send me photographs of the signs that you display and upon which you
seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract was been entered into. Please ensure that the photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and
legible manner. Please provide me with a diagram showing the locations and layout of those signs at the car park. Also provide evidence that the wording is in plain and
intelligible language and in sufficiently large print as to be legible, understood and acted upon by a driver moving a vehicle in and around the car park at the time of day the
PCN was issued.

6. Photographs- handling.

There are pictures of my vehicle on your website which you give as photographic evidence supporting your issuance of the PCN. I noticed that the photographs show no
signage in and around where my vehicle was parked. As your claim is largely based on signage, I find this an important point for you to consider when considering this letter. Following on from this, please send me a copy of your procedures for handling and processing the photographs you take and the relevant audit trail. Furthermore, under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 please send me copies of all photographs and videos you took of me and my vehicle, along with a copy of all other data you hold relating to me. As this would be required to be disclosed in any event as part of your evidence bundle in the small claims process, I do not expect to pay for the release of my personal data which you hold.

7. Summary

I look forward to receiving your acknowledgement or response within 14 days and as there are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ your comprehensive reply within 35 days (in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22.8). I will then be able to make an informed decision as to how I deal with your Parking Charge Notice – Notice to Keeper. If you reject this challenge or fail to address the issues that have been raised then, in accordance with the BPA AOS Code of Practice 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA code’) so that I may immediately refer the matter for their decision.

If you fail to follow any of the procedures outlined in the BPA AOS Code of Practice or your legal requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act, or the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct by not addressing all my concerns above, then as one of the many options open to me, I will make a formal complaint to the DVLA Data Sharing Policy Group, D16. Please Note: Unless you have specifically requested it and received my express permission, you do not have my authority to disclose or refer this letter or any other communication from me to any other person or organisation.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. xx

Can you post up the pics they have?

As regards responding, it may be better to send a second letter to TCM rebutting their assertions. No point in going to the IAS on the template you used as they will just agree with TCM

Hi,

I've attached copies of pictures I took of the vehicle on the day. The pictures taken by the PPC can't be copied from their website but they're generally the same as mine, apart from the fact that theirs had the PCN stuck to the car.

I've also attached 2 pictures of the signs taken on the day after the PCN was issued. One shows what you'll see from a short distance, ie nothing at all. The second is a real close up to see what the sign says. You'll notice that the sign still has the BPA logo on even though the PPC reply to my email was that they're now with IPC, and so will not act on my letter because it wasn't a reply.

I'd please like some advice on how to proceed. I'm minded to stick to the main points of my initial letter, and stress that I never agreed to pay £100 as the sign said because I couldn't read the sign whilst driving and had no sign in and around where I parked to read.

Any advice on how to proceed will be very much appreciated.

I'd go with the details you have especially the lack of clarity on the signs - very difficult to read - and the lack of signs in the area you parked. It will get refused and you will be offered the IAS which you should ignore and continue to reply to TCM. There is no need to use ADR if you have an honestly held belief, you can sort it out with TCM.

Expect lots of letters.

But all of that (me myself and I) gives away who was driving, blowing out the entire point of using the template in the first place, which was to appeal as the day to day keeper/lessee of the car, not saying 'I did this' and certainly not saying who parked the car.

Do not bother with the IAS stage at all. It hands the advantage to the PPC because consumers will almost always lose. It's not considered independent and awful decisions are made in favour of the PPC, contrary to contract law and the POFA.

Warn your company and/or lease hire firm that you have appealed but that the PPC is playing games and if they write to them, NOT TO PAY THE THING but to pass any letter to you as part of the appeals process, for whcih you are taking responsibility.

In the letter I attached in my opening post, I already admitted to being the driver of the vehicle on the day in question. With this being a company car, I wanted to get the leasing firm out of the equation. A bit hasty perhaps, but this approach had been successful on two previous occassions and the PCN wasn't pursued.

I'll write another letter to the PPC and stick to my story that I deny their claim that I agreed to pay them £100 based on signs that were impossible to read by a motorist, and therefore I couldn't have read and accepted.

If they reject this and won't let it go, I won't appeal to the IPC and I'll wait to see what they'd do next. Especially as the signs they're basing their entire argument on has got BPA logos on while their PCN has got the IPC logo on.

Thanks

Good plan, once more to confirm it was an appeal just ot make it crystal clear that they have indeed had an appeal from the driver - and then stop responding to their drivel. Pointless getting into protracted correspondence with scum like that.

At least by appealing as driver (which I hadn't noticed but I see you did - sorry I thought it was a standard appeal as keeper) you can be sure the PPC has no grounds to get the registered keeper's data.

How can there possibly be a contract if the signs are not correct? They stated BPA membership which was not correct at the time. Falsely claiming association with a trade body is an offence.

I have a similar scenario with a different PPC. Whilst I actually paid the parking fee (and still got a PCN long story) I am refusing to pay the PCN on the basis that there can be no contract. Can't selectively choose which bits of the signage they want to enforce..!

Hello,

I've got an update on the PCN this thread relates to.

I've had a letter rejecting my appeal and it basically says the following:

1. We've got over 55 signs around the car park displaying our terms and conditions.

2. Your car was parked in an area that is clearly a "No Parking" area (This was in response to me saying there were no signs anywhere near where I parked stating the terms, as could be seen in the pictures they took)

3. You can now pay us £60 within 14 days or £100 after that. Or you can appeal to IAS, but our offer of the £60 reduced payment will be withdrawn if you do. If you choose to do nothing we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and if the PCN remains unpaid we will proceed with court action.

Interestingly, the letter they sent was displaying the BPA logo even though they say they're affiliated to IPC

Most of the advice I've read seems to suggest I do nothing from this stage onwards and that I shouldn't even bother to send in an appeal to IAS. I am however minded to send in an appeal to IAS because, unless I'm mistaken, I've got nothing to lose. Also, thinking long term and assuming this ends up in court, will it make any difference whether I appeal to IAS or not?

The other thing is I use the car park in question quite often and since the PCN was issued, I have consciously been looking out for the signs while driving in and when walking through the car park, and it is absolutely impossible to see what the signs say. In fact, I looked again last night and the signs located at the entrance to the car park are made of a cardboard like material and tied to a pole with a string. They are so flimsy that they've been blown by the wind so they're now facing innwards instead of outwards.

I seriously am baffled that this method is what is being held up as proof that drivers issued with PCNs agreed to pay a contractual sum.

Anyway, can you guys please advise what concrete options I have left, and also, if they end up taking this to court, how does the process work.

Thanks

Concrete options - ignore the drivel, file it. In the very unlikely event (circa 0.5%) they take it to court it will be easily defeated.

You have to remember that this is a PPC, their sole source of income is from people paying, so you can see they have no incentive at all for accepting an appeal, it's like a Nigerian email scam, they can keep trying in the hope they hook someone, there is no comeback on them for keeping trying.

There are different types of BPA membership. Indeed, some IPC members are still BPA members. As long as they aren't misrepresenting their status there is probably not an issue.


Nothing to lose? Nope, the result is not binding on you. However, you will almost certainly lose.

If it ends up in court (a small chance but nevertheless possible and they have 6 years to pursue it) then it's debatable whether any IAS decision makes any difference. Of course, they would peddle that it does as the IAS has 'ADR' status. Personally, I wouldn't bother unless there's something absolutely concrete as the burden of proof is put on you to disprove any claim the company makes to the IAS.

They will likely start the 'escalation' process where suddenly if a claim does arrive it's suddenly for a much larger amount - see here. It's likely to the considered the 'unscrupulous practices' that could be subject to a crackdown in the near future...

Total car park management left the BPA and joined the IPC on 17.07/2015 , what can clearly be seen on the photo enclosed is the round BPA logo

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...st&id=39274


after 6 mths one would think they could afford some stickers , and some new stationary.

perhaps a quick email to the BPA stating that the company are still trading on the pretext of being BPA (AOS) members might be in order

Agreed that AOS signs should be removed now if their time is up.

However, if I'm not mistaken the BPA roundel logo is the BPA "Approved Operator" logo, which is clearly present on the signage and thus, given the material differences between the BPA and IPC AOSs, could be considered a fraudulent misrepresentation...

Secondly, the template letter SaintLeo originally sent to the PPC was labeled a "challenge", and clearly disputed the charge, but it also included language suggesting that a formal challenge would be forthcoming only after the PPC had "addressed my concerns below". If I had sent such a letter, I would have expected to submit a "formal challenge" within the time frame originally specified--regardless of whether or not the PPC had responded to my initial letter. Otherwise, I would be setting myself up for the PPC's inevitable claim that I had not actually challenged the PCN prior to the deadline.

--Churchmouse

Use of the AOS logo gets caught by CPUTR

see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry805190

Though getting TS to do anything is a different matter - despite TS being the statutory enforcer of CPUTR.

I am in a very similar position, ppc in question left BPA prior to my getting PCN.

I notified BPA and they agreed that the PPC are misrepresenting and after some pushing said that they'd given the PPC six months to change signs. To which point i asked BPA how any contract can exist if the signs are wrong. No reply.

IMO they are all at it together.

Does which ATA logo impact the formation of a contract?

It may have some issues as mentioned above, but the contract between the driver and the parking company could still exist.

It's (the appeal or arbitration) is part of the supposed contract isn't it?

The ppc is misrepresenting the terms.

I would argue the appeal process is not part of the contractual offer itself.

I guess the real question is - how does the law see it ?

owve ryou may only make the decisipon to park having seen that, if something goes wrong, you have access to an appeals process that at least has a semblance of impartiality.

Certainly any IPC ATA member I would reconsider parking there purely because I know the appeal is stacked against me.