Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Highview Parking
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2
cabbyman
My wife has a POPLA code received from this PPC in reponse to a letter to them detailing a) Why she failed to spend £5 in Tesco to comply with parking 'regulations,' and b) the various reasons why the charge was unenforceable, ie, penalty not a charge, contract with landowner, etc.

The appeal rejection claims the 'PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme.' 'Your representations have been carefully considered....'

Has Highview been to POPLA before?
Broadsman
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 25 Apr 2013 - 19:10) *
My wife has a POPLA code received from this PPC in reponse to a letter to them detailing a) Why she failed to spend £5 in Tesco to comply with parking 'regulations,' and b) the various reasons why the charge was unenforceable, ie, penalty not a charge, contract with landowner, etc.

The appeal rejection claims the 'PCN was issued legally and correctly according to the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme.' 'Your representations have been carefully considered....'

Has Highview been to POPLA before?



Thats a simple answer. She went there to buy item A, but it was out of stock. IF Tesco had made her aware when entering the store that she would have to spend at least £5 then I'm sure she would've taken her custom elsewhere.

cabbyman
Following the original PCN, she wrote this letter and received the reply shown. What should she do next?

[EDITED] April 2013






Highways Parking Ltd

Appeals Section

P O Box 599

Borehamwood

Herts

WD6 4ZL





Dear Sirs,



Charge Notice Ref No: [EDITED]



I am appealing the above charge for the following reason.



Upon returning to the Tesco store in question at approximately 11.45 am I tried to purchase some Krispy Kreme donuts and a newspaper before returning to my car. The purchases should have added up to more than the required £5.00.



When I presented the donuts at the checkout the first bag went through ok but, on the second box, the wrong price came up. I pointed out to the lady that they were three ring donuts and should be £3.95 and not the £4.35 that was showing. She argued with me and said that was the price but called another assistant over to check. She then put three separate donuts through which made them even more expensive. I objected and said the offer was three for £3.95. The second assistant disagreed and I said go and have a look - she didn't. We were the end checkout approximately 15 feet away from the donut stand.



By now, it is 12 noon and I am getting annoyed as I needed to get my grandson to pre-school by 12.30 pm. Another male assistant came over to see what the fuss was about and I explained to him the price difference. He said I was wrong but went over to the donuts to find out. In the meantime the donuts have been scanned and removed several times. I have stated several times that I do not have time for all this messing about. The male assistant came back and said I had used the wrong box (there was only one sort on view) and that was why the wrong price came up. He said he had found another box at the back that I should have used, which he then scanned in with the correct price. The two other assistants then left.



By this time I am getting very angry and impatient because of the time and because of the attitude of three members of staff who were neither helpful or polite. The original assistant then scanned my newspaper and the donuts again and told me my purchases came to £11. I said it should only be £7 something and that the donuts had been scanned twice. She very rudely 'tutted' and said she would get someone over to do it again. By this time it was 12.10 pm and I had had enough. I told her she could keep my shopping as I didn't have any more time and walked back to the car.



I am sorry to have been so long winded but, as you can see, I did try to spend money in Tesco. You may see from your cameras that I have always in the past spent the required amount and entered the required code and would not dream of 'skipping out' of paying for parking.



As well as the above:



1. I dispute there is a contract. Inadequate, poorly located and unclear signage mean a reasonable motorist could not be expected to see the terms prior to parking - as such the requirements of forming a contract (a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms etc) and the matter of defining an offer with subsequent acceptance and consideration, have not been satisfied and thus no contract exists.



1.1 As there is no contract, I would be at most guilty of the tort of trespass. Were this the case, my sole liability would be damages in favour of the landowner. As the car park was not in full occupation throughout the alleged trespass, I dispute that the landowner incurred any losses.



2. If a contract does exist, and that contract is between myself and the PPC, for such a contract to have been created PPC must have (and prove):

    <LI style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list 36.0pt" class=MsoNormal>an ownership interest in the land; or,
  • authority (probably in the form of a lease or licence) from the landowner granting the PPC the rights of occupation or possession of the land [per VCS -v- HMRC 2012]
3. Absent the above, any contract would in fact be between myself and the landowner. The PPC may be able to create this contract as the landowner's agent, but they would not be able to represent the landowner in court, nor bring action in their own name to re-coup damages or monies owing to the landowner.

4. If a contract exists, and that contract is between myself and the PPC, the terms are unfair because the charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the PPC's losses, and is thus a penalty.




The rear of your 'notice' is very unclear as to my options. In the event that you wish to pursue this matter further, would you please forward the relevant codes and paperwork for me to make a formal approach to POPLA.



Yours faithfully,













[EDITED]





Gan
A company that is so stupid as to send a letter in response that begins "it is clear you were not a customer" deserves the cost and inconvenience of a POPLA appeal.

Companies are losing the majority of appeals at the moment and, even if POPLA did agree with them, your wife can ignore their decision.

The chances that they would take it to court are zero

Your wife could also send a copy of her letter and their response to Tesco with a note that she might tolerate idiotic staff or their parking company but she isn't going to put up with both. Until it's cancelled she won't set foot in their store again.
bama
"if your appeal doers not relate to the above (unspecified !) criteria... you mat be requested to pay the full charge..."

What are they on ? is it on prescription ?
cabbyman
So, do we just repeat that to POPLA? Does it need editing?
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Fri, 26 Apr 2013 - 23:55) *
So, do we just repeat that to POPLA? Does it need editing?




There's a LOT more to a POPLA appeal than that, please don't make the same mistake Eunos1 on MSE did and rush a weak appeal to POPLA missing the points that would actually win! When he followed the weak appeal with a stronger one it was overlooked and the PPC won the appeal. Now I do hope Eunos1 will complain to POPLA but the lesson from that link is...get a strong, demanding and challenging appeal in first time!

Examples of stronger POPLA appeal wording shown here, near the end of these threads:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=78026

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4506249

...and that second one has a link to MSE's record so far of known 'POPLA decisions', which show you all the things that people have won on. You can see that the submissions that have won have been very detailed and demanding of the PPC, for evidence, as well as having facts specific to the case.

The sort of issues to consider are in this template (but it is not written for POPLA, it's a template for an initial challenge to a PPC):

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/appeal-letter/

Did they tick all the boxes to get keeper liability established? Doubt it!

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

Did they comply in all ways with all points of the BPA Code of Practice; e.g. camera compliance/maintenance, deadlines met, wording spot on, signage clear? Doubt it!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4535287

Have you complained to the Store Manager of that Tesco about this farce of a situation to see if he/she will cancel the fake PCN direct?
cabbyman
I've done a bit of a copy and paste with some merges and amendments from the cases you indicated, SRM. I haven't included anything about our 'upset' with Tescos. Do you think we sould include that in our representations to POPLA? I must admit, my head is spinning with trying to absorb all this; It was a lot easier when you just ignored it all! Any further comments would be appreciated.

Please find my appeal below
Highview Parking.
PCN no xxxxx
Popla ref xxxx
Reg xxxxx
Tesco xxxx

On the [date], Highview issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in the Tesco xxxx Car Park for 1 hour 29 minutes.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the site. They contend that there is a requirement to enter an entitlement code to validate the 2 hours free parking for customers or has exceeded the 2 hour maximum stay and that a failure to comply with the restrictions means that a parking charge notice will be issued, and that I failed to comply with these conditions.

My Appeal.

1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Highview Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

2. - I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Highview Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Highview Parking ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Highview Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Highview Parking Ltd are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.


- I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it in the light of VCS -v- HMRC 2012.

Even if a basic contract 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 Highview Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Highview Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
SchoolRunMum
Did they not breach any of the BPA code of practice and did their letter meet the deadline for registered keeper liability? Looks like you could add more...they can't have got it all spot-on!

I would point out that you were a customer of Tesco as already submitted in your appeal to Highview.

I would get rid of this bit as you've taken it from a POPLA decision by Shona (these are her words) which isn't needed in your submission of course:

''The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the site. They contend that there is a requirement to enter an entitlement code to validate the 2 hours free parking for customers or has exceeded the 2 hour maximum stay and that a failure to comply with the restrictions means that a parking charge notice will be issued, and that I failed to comply with these conditions.''
cabbyman
I think the thumbnail in my post #3 above fails to show that they properly considered the points raised in the appeal. Do you agree?

I went through the original PCN but couldn't find anything that I could see in breach of BPA. I'll try to host it somewhere and post on here after editing. May take a llittle while.

Edit: Removed unecessary comments!
cabbyman
The original Highview PCN:



nigelbb
The NTK doesn't mention POPLA or even more importantly state who the creditor is. It should have been received not earlier than 28 days nor more than 56 days after the NTD was left on the car.
cabbyman
It mentions 'independent adjudcation process.' Do you think it should have used the word 'POPLA?'

It was ANPR based so not NTD attached to the vehicle.
Salmosalaris
add something like this
. This notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.
hoohoo
Add in:

3. I deny any contract was formed with the Operator. The signage is inadequate, and does not comply with the BPA code of practice 18.2. The entrance signs are non-compliant being the wrong colour and having lettering of the wrong size.

4. As the charge is for breach of contract, then as per the BPA code of practice 19.5 "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer." I dent that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and require the Operator to prove this.
cabbyman
Do we have to supply POPLA with copies of the PPC's notices?
hoohoo
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sun, 28 Apr 2013 - 19:50) *
Do we have to supply POPLA with copies of the PPC's notices?


The PPC have to provide this as part of their evidence pack, which should be sent to you about 8 days before the appeal is due to be held.

If they miss this out, then they will almost certainly lose as they have no evidence that a charge was ever issued.
outlook
Is this the new store in Fareham by any chance? If so the signage is absolutely all over the place there.

One thing I'd add is that the original PCN states either/or with regards to the alleged 'contravention', that's something to also put in front of POPLA. Which is that they're alleging? How can you appeal/defend if you don't know? Etc. etc.

Salmosalaris
well if you' re claiming they are inadequate yes.




bama
and add
Thank you for the pointer to the DfT, without your help i would never have found the document
"Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:
Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges"
SchoolRunMum
As it's a postal PCN based on camera issue, look at page 13 of the BPA CoP about ANPR:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Docu...ice_2013_v1.pdf

Simply list those requirements of ANPR tickets, in bullet points with paragraph numbers from the CoP and state 'I have had no evidence that Highview have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.


And the BPA code of practice also says

'20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also
include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable
cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.'

Well I can't see that this fake PCN complies with that. As in the point already raised by outlook, the PCN says 'either/or' of 2 different contraventions as a generic catch-all. Does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14 IMHO.


Also I don't have time to read any more of the BPA CoP (but you would be advised to have a closer look I think). Quite honestly you could literally quote loads of it and say 'I have no evidence that Highview have complied with points x, y, z so require that they prove their compliance to POPLA.

And what about the signage, is that fully compliant with the CoP?

And have you compared the Notice to the relevant schedules in the POF Act (the CoP which I have linked for you, cites which Schedules apply, so check them out too). Did they post it in time?

And add in that you consider the fake PCN to be a penalty because Highview have alleged a breach of t&cs and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).
hoohoo
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 29 Apr 2013 - 01:31) *
And what about the signage, is that fully compliant with the CoP?


I've never seen any Highview signage that was anywhere near compliant.

The colours they use are practically the colours the BPA use as an example of colours not to use. The height of the letters on entrance signs is smaller than required. The height of smaller lettering is not the required proportion of the big lettering. The placement of signs is often bad; sometimes so bad that you have to think they deliberately worked out where the worst place to put a sign would be.

Definitely go to town on the signage. List out the non-compliant parts and require them to explain why they think their signage is sufficient when it is so different from the requirements.

Also, for later, when they send in their POPLA pack, check the signage map they send in. I've never seen them do this correctly. Complain that it is not accurate and send in photos to prove this. Ask for the map to be struck out as evidence, and therefore for the appeal to be upheld as they have not provided proof that the signage was adequate. You can do this because you are allowed time to comment on their evidence and you can email this in to POPLA before the adjudication date as long as you have your POPLA reference code in the email subject line.
cabbyman
I've added some more to our POPLA appeal taking into account SRM's comments above. We haven't yet had a chance to check the signage although I'm not sure we will be able to within the time available. The rejection and POPLA code was dated 19th April and received by us 25th April. What does that make our deadline for the POPLA appeal?


Please find my appeal below
Highview Parking.
PCN no xxxxx
Popla ref xxxx
Reg xxxxx
Tesco xxxx

On the [date], Highview issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in the Tesco xxxx Car Park for 1 hour 29 minutes.


My Appeal.

1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Highview Parking Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Highview Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).


2. - I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Highview Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Highview Parking Ltd's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Highview Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Highview Parking Ltd are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.


-I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it in the light of VCS -v- HMRC 2012.

Even if a basic contract 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 Highview Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Highview Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.



The notice to keeper is not compliant with paragraph 9 (2)(h) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 in that it does not identify the creditor . The operator is required to specifically "identify" the creditor not simply name them on it .This would require words to the effect of " The creditor is ..... " . The keeper is entitled to know the party with whom any purported contract was made. This they have failed to do and thus have have not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under POFA to allow them to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper.


The BPA code of practice contains the following:

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
• 21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage,
control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long
as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that
you are using this technology and what you will use the
data captured by ANPR cameras for.

• 21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you
should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.

• 21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your
car parks in good working order. You need to make sure
the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and
cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use
to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our
compliance team or our agents.

• 21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• 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.

• 21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability
provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have
not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the
driver in the car park where the parking event took
place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict
requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule
(in particular paragraph 9).

I have had no evidence that Highview have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

And the BPA code of practice also says

'20.14 When you serve a Notice to Keeper, you must also
include information telling the keeper the ‘reasonable
cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.'

The PCN says 'either/or' of 2 different contraventions as a generic catch-all. This does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.



Feel free to suggest layout amendments and a finishing paragraph! :-)

Thanks to all for the kind assistance.
cabbyman
Should we include the argument inside the store to POPLA or is it fairly irrelevant?
nigelbb
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Wed, 8 May 2013 - 14:11) *
Should we include the argument inside the store to POPLA or is it fairly irrelevant?

It's irrelevant for POPLA as they don't do mitigation.

Was this Tesco's car park? If so you really should be in there complaining like hell that because of the donut screw-up & subsequent argument that you have been lumbered with a "fine"
cabbyman
It was Tesco. I'll get her to do something to them.

STOP PRESS: Today, 9/5/13, she received a 'charge notice reminder' from Highview dated 7/5/13!!!! Slam dunk at POPLA, me thinks???

This was identical to the previous charge notice except for a) the title, b) A para 'A notice was sent to you on xx/xx/xx which gave you 14 days to pay the reduced charge or challenge its issue. The full amount of £70 is now due. [And after in red] If payment is not received within 14 days, an additional administration charge will be incurred.'

How and where should we amend the POPLA draft, above, in light of this?

Many thanks for all the help on this.
nigelbb
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 7 May 2013 - 18:23) *
I've added some more to our POPLA appeal taking into account SRM's comments above. We haven't yet had a chance to check the signage although I'm not sure we will be able to within the time available. The rejection and POPLA code was dated 19th April and received by us 25th April. What does that make our deadline for the POPLA appeal?

To my mind & that of any reasonable person the 28 days would start from the day that you receive the code but it's a bit of a grey area as POPLA may be interpreting it as when the PPC is issued with the code. Unfair I know & any refusal of POPLA to hear the case in these circumstances would be a very black mark indeed at a subsequent court case but the idea of using POPLA is to avoid a court case & all the preliminary threatening letters otherwise you may as well have just ignore all correspondence in the first place. To be on the safe side it's better to get the POPLA appeal in sooner rather than later. In the worst case if the countdown started on 19th April then May 17th is the end whereas if the countdown started on April 25th then it's May 23rd.
nigelbb
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 9 May 2013 - 17:38) *
It was Tesco. I'll get her to do something to them.

STOP PRESS: Today, 9/5/13, she received a 'charge notice reminder' from Highview dated 7/5/13!!!! Slam dunk at POPLA, me thinks???

This was identical to the previous charge notice except for a) the title, b) A para 'A notice was sent to you on xx/xx/xx which gave you 14 days to pay the reduced charge or challenge its issue. The full amount of £70 is now due. [And after in red] If payment is not received within 14 days, an additional administration charge will be incurred.'

How and where should we amend the POPLA draft, above, in light of this?

Many thanks for all the help on this.

The BPA CoP states

QUOTE
22.6 When you receive a challenge about the issue of a
parking charge, you must stop work on processing the
charge immediately. You must not increase the charge
until you have replied to the challenge.


However there is nothing that says what happens after they have sent a POPLA code. The CoP does state

QUOTE
22.16 You must keep to the processes and other requirements of
POPLA, as set out in their Code of Practice and elsewhere.


I would hope that the POPLA CoP states that all charges should be put on hold until the outcome of their deliberations but I cannot find a copy of the POPLA CoP on their website.

It is still a big stick to beat them with in a POPLA appeal that they are ignoring POPLA & anticipating the outcome by continuing to harass you
cabbyman
There's a link to the BPA CoP in SRM's post #21 above. I thought I saw in there somewhere that they had to cease collection activity. I can't find it now!!! :-(
TRX75
I'm not sure about any amendments that may be required due to Highview's reminder, but it may be better to remove any references to VCS v HMRC 2012 in the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in VCS v HMRC 2013 - see here. Of particular relevance are Lord Justice Lewison's statements as follows:
QUOTE
The breach of contract issue
21. The Upper Tribunal's reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning.

....and later:
QUOTE
23. Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract [with motorists]


I'm aware that recent POPLA decisions have cited that case but it's probably only a matter of time before Shona updates herself with the latest developments. PPC's rights under their contracts with landowners were challengeable long before VCS v HMRC happened. They are still challengeable and I don't believe there's a need to cite any relevant case law when putting Highview to proof of any rights they claim to have.
nigelbb
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 9 May 2013 - 19:01) *
There's a link to the BPA CoP in SRM's post #21 above. I thought I saw in there somewhere that they had to cease collection activity. I can't find it now!!! :-(


QUOTE
22.12 If you reject a challenge you must:
• tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA. This
includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or
a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal
• give the driver a reasonable amount of time to pay
the charge before restarting the collection process.
We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from
the date you rejected the challenge.


It's a recommendation to allow 35 days not a 'must' but it's still contrary to the spirit of an appeal process.
hoohoo
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 7 May 2013 - 18:23) *
What does that make our deadline for the POPLA appeal?


There is nothing to stop you making the POPLA appeal right now, this evening. This starts the clock ticking. You will get a confirmation email straight away. Tomorrow, POPLA will tell you your earliest adjudication date, which will be another 35 days time.

You then have those 35 days to email in your full appeal.

I have done this with all my appeals so far, entering the reason for the appeal as:

QUOTE
Details to follow


I haven't had any problems doing this. If you are at all unsure as to the actual 28 day deadline, I recommend starting the appeal now, and then following up in the fullness of time.

In actual fact, POPLA are running about 20ish days behind schedule anyway, so you have more like 48 days grace; but they can process the appeal at any time after the 35 days, so it is best to get the appeal in before then.
KillerSteve
QUOTE (TRX75 @ Thu, 9 May 2013 - 19:07) *
Of particular relevance are Lord Justice Lewison's statements as follows:
QUOTE
The breach of contract issue
21. The Upper Tribunal's reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning.

....and later:
QUOTE
23. Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract [with motorists]




And this is where I think the court of appeal went wrong.
They are saying that despite a ppc not having a right under the contract between the ppc and landowner to contract with a driver, that the ppc can still contract with the driver?

So what happens if a landowner who generally uses a ppc for parking, verbally offers parking to a person/driver for instance for a week for £20, then does the landowners contract take preference over the ppcs contract with the driver?
bama
QUOTE
They are still challengeable and I don't believe there's a need to cite any relevant case law when putting Highview to proof of any rights they claim to have.

yes indeedy !
it has to be down to the paperwork (the facts) in each case.
cabbyman
OK, we'll lodge an appeal 'details to follow' over the weekend.

To the draft above, we have added:

" On 9th May 2013, I received a 'Charge Notice Reminder' dated 7/5/13, 'the full amount of £70....' 'If payment is not received within 14 days, an additional administration charge will be incurred.'

22.12 If you reject a challenge you must:
• tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA. This
includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or
a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal
• give the driver a reasonable amount of time to pay
the charge before restarting the collection process.
We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from
the date you rejected the challenge."

Is this good to go?
cabbyman
Appeal submitted to POPLA today 'details to follow.'

I presume time starts ticking now. What is the appeal above looking like? Do we need to make any changes? Please help! Thank you.
SchoolRunMum
TBH I think you seem to have a very good POPLA appeal there, especially with the latest bit added (post #35).
cabbyman
We have now submitted the appeal online. In order to keep the thread complete, this is the appeal we sent:
cabbyman
The acknowledgement from POPLA quotes the parties as '[RK] v Ranger on behalf of Highview.'

Ranger have not appeared anywhere on any paperwork prior to this. Is this significant? If so, can it be used?
nigelbb
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Sun, 19 May 2013 - 12:54) *
The acknowledgement from POPLA quotes the parties as '[RK] v Ranger on behalf of Highview.'

Ranger have not appeared anywhere on any paperwork prior to this. Is this significant? If so, can it be used?

According to the Highview website "Through its relationship with Ranger Services, Highview Parking benefits from a wealth of experience and expertise in developing technology solutions using ANPR, in order to create unbeatable car park management services." However they appear to be two entirely different companies albeit sharing the same registered address.

Company Registered Address:
Ranger Services Ltd – Registered Office: 35 Ballards Lane, London N3 1XW, Registered in England 4797172

Company Registered Address:
Highview Parking Ltd - Registered Office: 35 Ballards Lane, London N3 1XW. Registered in England 05541862

It may be worth holding off complaining to see what hole they dig for themselves as Ranger when the purported contract has only ever been with Highview.

BTW You didn't raise the question of inadequate signage at the site. There is sure to be grounds for complaint here. CTake some photographs demonstrating that the signage doesn't comply with what is prescribed in the BPA CoP http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Docu...2_March2013.pdf You can submit extra evidence to POPLA as long as you make sure that you use the same verification code. In the next few weeks you should receive a package that is Highview's (or Ranger's) response to your challenge.
Jlc
So has the creditor been clearly identified for PoFA compliance?
cabbyman
We have just received Highview's submissions.

Just a partial copy of our first letter and their statement that we admitted no purchase! Then a random selection of photos of signs and a map of signage.

No attempt to address our submissions to POPLA regarding contract, pre-estimate of loss, etc, etc, etc!!!

Slam dunk?????
Jlc
Slam dunk?????
cabbyman
I saw that earlier, Jlc.

I don't quite have the nerve to follow the opening examples but, like PP, we have a plan of the site that has no key but a load of numbers. I was incorrect in my previous post stating that we had a map of signage!!! Apologies for making a misleading statement and possibly committing a PCoJ!!!
Jlc
Are you a member of parliament then? laugh.gif
cabbyman
POPLA: 'Your appeal will be considered on or soon after 18 June 2013.'

I'm getting impatient now!!!!
bus_driver
QUOTE (cabbyman @ Mon, 24 Jun 2013 - 19:37) *
POPLA: 'Your appeal will be considered on or soon after 18 June 2013.'

I'm getting impatient now!!!!


Keep waiting... mine was due to be heard on the 14th June. One that's recently been decided on was originally supposed to have been mid-may, so it looks like a 40 day or so wait...
SatNavSam
Poor Shona's working as hard as she can!

It's those nasty people on internet forums encouraging all these appeals and overloading the system. laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
hoohoo
From best information, POPLA are running around 6 weeks late for cases filed in early April; cases filed then are just getting adjudicated now.

The delays will only increase (unless POPLA take on more staff), because appeals are coming in at twice the rate POPLA can process them. Each time a case gets reported on, the delay gets larger and larger.

Your case was submitted 12 May, so POPLA may well be 8-12 weeks late for cases submitted then. You can probably expect your case to be adjudicated August or September, unless they can eat into the backlog.
psimmons200
Obviously it's overloaded; perhaps Highview are right that people are using POPLA vexatiously tongue.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.