Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Capital 2 coast should I appeal?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Jujar
Hiya, I'm hoping some people can offer some advice.

We received a "fpn" from capital 2 coast may 31st. I appealed this though their process on June 4th (probably not very well, I had no idea at the time that there was a whole world of advice available). Despite bpa code of conduct stating they should respond to the appeal within 35 days, it was 65 days until we heard back that they didn't accept our appeal. Bpa state that their failure to comply with their codes of conduct doesn't negate my charge but would affect their sanction points.

I'm unsure whether to appeal further and was hoping someone could take a look at our circumstances and advise? I suspect we don't have cause for an appeal.. But it's worth an ask.. We don't have £60 to spare!

We parked in a church car park for a wedding rehearsal. We were there for around an hour, possibly less and no more than. The car park is managed by capital 2 coast. On arrival my husband was handed a parking permit to pop in his dash. He was in a hurry and assumed it was a generic pass and popped it in the windscreen. He was dealing with a wet baby, juice box incident and was preoccupied with tending to the wet toddler and our eldest son also. The permit was displayed clearly on the dash but was not filled in (upon returning to the car we saw the charge notice and realised we hadn't filled in date and car details etc).

I guess our grounds for appeal are that it was a genuine mistake. We were not abusing the car park, we were there as authorised users, hence indeed having a permit in the first place. In error we didn't complete this correctly but we were using the car park legitimately.
Secondly, the charge is unreasonable and exceeds and possible losses incurred (£100 or £60 early) especially when parking in another car park wouldn't have cost us more than £4.
It's so much money to ask of someone who I think falls beyond the brief of misusing the car park.

Plus they didn't respond to my appeal within the terms of their code of conduct.


I'm guessing though this wouldn't be sufficient for an appeal to popla?

Thanks for your advice!
kommando
Popla appeals cover more than just the initial 'Error', they don't do mitigating circumstances which is why there is an appeal generator on this site to make sure you cover all the available points (but you will need to add in the 65 days bit)

http://pepipoo.3owl.com/pagan/index.html

Have they provided a POPLA 10 digit code in their appeal rejection ?
Jujar
Yes, they did provide a code. Thanks!
kirkbyinfurnesslad
Have a search round on here and mse about what you should put in your Appeal(don't bother with what happened in the day stuff)
Then post it up for comment and advise
DisGruntle345
But do have a go at the Church/Diocese re their status as landowner and whether they are going to intervene to prevent usary on their premises.
ManxRed
Matthew 21:12

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were ticketing vehicles in the temple, and overturned the tables of the car park attendants and the seats of those who were operating a self-ticketing scheme. And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a SCHEME FOR ISSUING UNENFORCEABLE INVOICES."…
Jlc
QUOTE (Jujar @ Fri, 9 Aug 2013 - 12:49) *
We received a "fpn"

Can you confirm exactly what it was called? As FPN could be a misrepresentation of authority...

If you were given authority to park then the 'landowner' should intervene. Anyway, as you note, their 'losses' are no where near their demands...
Jujar
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 12 Aug 2013 - 14:25) *
QUOTE (Jujar @ Fri, 9 Aug 2013 - 12:49) *
We received a "fpn"

Can you confirm exactly what it was called? As FPN could be a misrepresentation of authority...



Sorry, it was a FCN Fixed Charge Notice

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Mon, 12 Aug 2013 - 13:14) *
Matthew 21:12

And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were ticketing vehicles in the temple, and overturned the tables of the car park attendants and the seats of those who were operating a self-ticketing scheme. And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a SCHEME FOR ISSUING UNENFORCEABLE INVOICES."…


This is hilarious!!!

I did contact the church and they said they could (would) do nothing because the ticket was given correctly
Jujar
Thanks everyone for your help, it is very greatly appreciated.

I have used the appeal letter generator, but the problem I have is that I am some 300 miles from the car park in question, so where the appeal letter references the text on the sign in car park, I have no way to verify if this is accurate or not. So although the charge is clearly unreasonable, I do not think I will have grounds to fight it.

The letter also states they need to provide proof that they are working legitimately for the land owner, but I know from speaking with the church that they are.

It seems my only argument is that it is not fair and I suspect that will not hold up!

Grr. I shall have to pay I think. And of course report them for breaching terms of appeal and they will hopefully get sanction points!

Thanks again

Julia
Jlc
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 10:00) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 12 Aug 2013 - 14:25) *
QUOTE (Jujar @ Fri, 9 Aug 2013 - 12:49) *
We received a "fpn"

Can you confirm exactly what it was called? As FPN could be a misrepresentation of authority...

Sorry, it was a FCN Fixed Charge Notice

Sounds like a misrepresentation of authority to me. (Section 14 of the Code of Practice)

Put this in the POPLA appeal as a breach of BPA Ltd CoP. The word 'fixed' is akin to council/police tickets which do have statutory backing.

QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 10:11) *
It seems my only argument is that it is not fair and I suspect that will not hold up!

Grr. I shall have to pay I think. And of course report them for breaching terms of appeal and they will hopefully get sanction points!

Why? This very reason wins many POPLA appeals - put them to strict proof that the charge is an actual is a true estimate of their losses.

QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 10:00) *
I did contact the church and they said they could (would) do nothing because the ticket was given correctly

I hope you won't be using their services again? wink.gif
Jujar
Thanks for your help and encouragement, you inspired me to do a letter! Ive attached a draft.. I am unsure about the 3rd point, regarding contract. Only since I do know they have been appointed by the church, but is the point of the wording more that they need to offer evidence?

Anyway here is a rushed first draft..
kommando
Please remove your PDF as it has too many details that could identify you.
ItchyCrakus
Take it down and remove all identifying text.
Jujar
Sorry! Try again
nigelbb
I don't like the last sentence at all & think that you should leave it out. Even if POPLA were to perversely refuse this appeal then you are not going to pay as a court would never find against you on this evidence.

The appeal is good but I would lead on the point that you were there by invitation & were displaying a permit. What do the signs say about displaying a permit? I bet it's just that a permit must be displayed not that it must be filled in with date & registration details. There is no conceivable loss to the landowner so a £60 'fine' is just part of the money making scheme dreamed up by Capital 2 Coast.

It's quite disgraceful of the church to permit this. Was it the vicar that told you that he would do nothing or a jobsworth church warden? If it was the vicar I would complain to his bishop. If it wasn't the vicar I would get hold of him & insist that this charge be cancelled. This was a wedding rehearsal so what about the bridal couple & their families? Can't they lobby the church on your behalf.
Jujar
Thank you for your feedback!

I am the brides sister in law! I did not want her and her new husband to know about the ticket though because I know they would be really upset. I contacted the lady at the church that deals with the company and I know she had over turned tickets before. She says that they cannot overturn a ticket that has been correctly given. The vicar was aware of me getting the ticket as he directed me to the lady..

The problem is we live 300 miles from the place, so I have no way to check what the sign says.

I will certainly leave out the lat bit (that was from the generated letter)

I am unsure whether to submit this though? I fear I may not have enough grounds and would therefore end up having to pay the full £100.. I will do another draft and resubmit..

Thanks again, I really am grateful!

Jlc
Good stuff! Also see this thread - it's the world's largest template appeal but pick the bones out of it that are useful/relevant and most importantly you understand!
Jujar
Version 2..

You guys really are very kind!
Jlc
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 13:22) *
I am unsure whether to submit this though? I fear I may not have enough grounds and would therefore end up having to pay the full £100.. I will do another draft and resubmit..

Ah, you are succumbing to the 'early discount' mind game. The threat of an increasing amount is designed to get you to pay.

As you owe them nothing and will be paying them nothing then it doesn't matter.......

Appealing to POPLA will remove the discount anyway (this is primarily because it costs them £27).
Jujar
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 13:46) *
As you owe them nothing and will be paying them nothing then it doesn't matter.......


I like your optimism! By this do you mean if my appeal fails, I ignore debt collectors and let it go to court where it is likely not be enforced?

I am only small and pregnant and have two kids, I am unsure if I can keep out burly debt collectors! Ha ha
nigelbb
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 13:46) *
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 13:22) *
I am unsure whether to submit this though? I fear I may not have enough grounds and would therefore end up having to pay the full £100.. I will do another draft and resubmit..

Ah, you are succumbing to the 'early discount' mind game. The threat of an increasing amount is designed to get you to pay.

As you owe them nothing and will be paying them nothing then it doesn't matter.......

Appealing to POPLA will remove the discount anyway (this is primarily because it costs them £27).
& because they don't want you to appeal to POPLA.
Jlc
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 13:57) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 13:46) *
As you owe them nothing and will be paying them nothing then it doesn't matter.......


I like your optimism! By this do you mean if my appeal fails, I ignore debt collectors and let it go to court where it is likely not be enforced?

I am only small and pregnant and have two kids, I am unsure if I can keep out burly debt collectors! Ha ha

Optimism? It's the truth. You had 'permission' to park - there was no loss.

Debt collectors will not turn up at your doorstep. They will send loads of silly letters threatening the world.

It's unlikely they will attempt a court claim but if it does there is quite a bit of work involved to 'defend'. This is one of the smaller PPC's and they don't have a record for it - indeed, it's just as much effort for them and even if they did win they are likely to be out of pocket anyway.
Jujar
Thank you, your time and input is really useful.

I guess I just need to weigh up the risk or appealing and winning versus appealing and losing and the, albeit small, chance of going to court.

I am also unsure about the 5th section, demanding they prove their right to charge when I know that they are employed by the church. Or is more the point that they should have done this already? The problem with using a template is not necessarily fully understanding it! This section is the only bit I have not heavily edited or written myself..

Is it worth adding a summary?

In summary:
1. I was parked with the landowners permission;
2. It is my assertion that the respondent has used language which is a misrepresentation of authority;
3. The respondent has failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice;
4. There was no loss to any party, certainly no loss justifying such a disproportionate claim;
5. I question the respondents claim to have the right to charge me
nigelbb
Make sure to get the point home that not only is the claim unwarranted & disproportionate but must be a genuine pre-estimate of losses & that they need to prove this. This is a recent landmark POPLA decision that you should quote as it concedes the fundamental issue that any loss must be attributable to that particular parking event i.e. whether you had parked there or not nobody suffered any loss. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...p;postcount=199
Jujar
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 18:19) *
Make sure to get the point home that not only is the claim unwarranted & disproportionate but must be a genuine pre-estimate of losses & that they need to prove this. This is a recent landmark POPLA decision that you should quote as it concedes the fundamental issue that any loss must be attributable to that particular parking event i.e. whether you had parked there or not nobody suffered any loss. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...p;postcount=199



This is amazing!! Am I allowed to submit this as supporting evidence? Otherwise I am unsure how to cite it as there is no case number etc?
kirkbyinfurnesslad
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 19:53) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 14 Aug 2013 - 18:19) *
Make sure to get the point home that not only is the claim unwarranted & disproportionate but must be a genuine pre-estimate of losses & that they need to prove this. This is a recent landmark POPLA decision that you should quote as it concedes the fundamental issue that any loss must be attributable to that particular parking event i.e. whether you had parked there or not nobody suffered any loss. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpo...p;postcount=199



This is amazing!! Am I allowed to submit this as supporting evidence? Otherwise I am unsure how to cite it as there is no case number etc?


No you can't submit the previous case as each case is judged on its merits.

But you include the loss element
Jujar
Right, here is my latest version! I am starting to feel a little more confident about this smile.gif

Relevant Documents:
1. Notice to Keeper served by Capital 2 Coast Security Ltd on the registered keeper (attached)
2. My appeal to Capital 2 Coast Security Ltd against the parking charge (not attached because it was submitted via an online form and a copy was not issued to me. I propose Capital 2 Coast Security can provide this if needed)
3. Letter from Capital 2 Coast Security Ltd rejecting my appeal (attached)
4. BPA Ltd Code of Practice (not attached)
5. A recent landmark POPLA ruling which supports the appellants claim that the charge is unenforceable because it is not an actual or genuine pre-estimate of loss resulting from the alleged breach of contract (attached)

Alleged Infringement
The Respondent alleges that, on 31-05-2013, the driver of a vehicle registration number xxxxxx, of which I am the Registered Keeper, was parked in breach of the terms and conditions and as such a Parking Charge is due. A Notice to Keeper (NTK) with the identity xxxxxx was received by the Keeper on 31-05-2013, the same day of the event.


Grounds for appeal:

1. Abuse of purpose
It would seem that the intent of the landowner using a parking enforcement company would be to stop misuse of the car park, that is to say to ensure that those parking are entitled to do so. I provided evidence in my appeal that were were indeed using the car park legitimately, as invited guests. We were given a permit which we did display visibly in our car. Human error meant that the permit was not completed correctly, but we were in possession of the correct permit, as provided by the landowner. Given the authorised nature of our use of the car park it seems frankly unfair and an abuse of power, to the end of financial gain, to not overturn this charge. To insist upon a charge, a hugely disproportionate charge at that, despite our authorised usage of the car park is an abuse of power and purpose.


2. Misrepresentation of authority
The parking charge was entitled a Fixed Charged Notice. The work fixed is akin to council/police tickets which, unlike this charge, do have a statutory backing. I suggest that this is a misrepresentation of authority as detailed in section 14 of the Code of Practice.


3. Failure to comply with BPA Code of Practice
Capital 2 Coast did not respond to my appeal with their decision until some 65 days after I submitted my appeal to them (see their attached response for details). This hugely exceeds the 35 days outlined in the BPA Code of Practice as the time frame in which they must make a decision on any appeals. I suggest that I not be held to Capital 2 Coasts unreasonable charges if they themselves are not holding themselves to their regulators Code of Practice.


4. Singage and unreasonable charges
The claim is unwarranted and disproportionate. The claim must be a genuine pre-estimate of losses and the operator needs to prove this. This loss must be attributable to the parking event (and not just operator costs since the cost would not be affected by the appellant parking there or not). There was no loss to any party, certainly no loss justifying such a disproportionate claim I therefore conclude that I cannot be liable for this charge.
The signage states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a ‘failure to comply’ with the terms of parking. This wording clearly indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge is punitive. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of liquidated damages and is therefore an unlawful penalty charge. For example, had I not been invited to use this car park on the afternoon of 31 May 2013, I could have parked in a council owned car park only a few minutes walk away for a charge of no more than £4. Capital 2 Coast Security Ltd claims that its charges are in line with the BPA Ltd Code of Practice (CoP). Whilst the BPA Ltd CoP states that operator must justify in advance any parking charge over £100, it does not automatically follow that any charge which is £100 or under is justified. The respondent, Capital 2 Coast Security Ltd, also claims that it’s charges have been held to be enforceable in other cases but has failed to produce any reasonable evidence to justify this particular parking charge. Losses caused by breaches of a parking contract may vary depending on the nature of the breach and the car park. The fact that a parking charge at a certain level is held not to be a penalty in one car park does not mean that the same sum is a pre-estimate of loss caused in every car park.

It is my assertion that the parking charge is punitive and an unenforceable penalty and the
Respondent has not provided any evidence as to how and why this parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is not sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case. Furthermore there has been no conceivable loss to the landowner through my legitimate use of the car park.


5. No contractual authority
The Respondent has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver. That is to say, that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, it is the properly appointed agent of the landowner or has been properly authorised by the landowner to recover unpaid parking charges from a driver. Accordingly, the Respondent should be required to provide a copy (to both POPLA and myself) of;
1. Its contract with the owner of the land on which the car park is situated
2. Evidence of the land ownership of the party with whom the Respondent has contracted
3. A “Purchase Order” incorporating this car park into that contract in the event that that contract is a framework agreement within, say, the next fourteen days. In the alternative, if the Respondent is the owner of the land then it should evidence that ownership within the same time period. If the Respondent is unable or unwilling to do so, then it should not be permitted to offer any evidence in this appeal. The Appellant reserves the right to provide further representations in this appeal upon considering the evidence that has been requested. It is submitted that without such evidence the Appellants’ position is prejudiced by being unable to properly challenge the Respondents’ position. POPLA is operated by the London Councils under a contract it has with the BPA. As such it will be governed by the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 6. That article requires that an Appellant must
have a real opportunity to present his or her case or challenge the case against them. This will require access to a Respondents’ submissions, procedural equality, and generally requires access to evidence relied on by the other party.

In summary:
1. I was parked with the landowners permission;
2. It is my assertion that the respondent has used language which is a misrepresentation of authority;
3. The respondent has failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice;
4. The claim is unwarranted and disproportionate. The claim must be a genuine pre-estimate of losses and the operator needs to prove this. This loss must be attributable to the parking event (and not just operator costs since the cost would not be affected by the appellant parking there or not). There was no loss to any party, certainly no loss justifying such a disproportionate claim. I therefore conclude that I cannot be liable for this charge;
5. I question the respondents claim to have the right to charge me.




























Jujar
I do not know if this helps, but the landowner sent me this picture yesterday of the signs on site?

I do not know if this helps, but the landowner sent me this picture yesterday of the signs on site?
bama
unreadable
Jujar
Based on the image I have a (hopefully fina) appeal letter... Any thoughts welcome!
ManxRed
QUOTE (Jujar @ Thu, 15 Aug 2013 - 10:03) *
I do not know if this helps, but the landowner sent me this picture yesterday of the signs on site?


States that under the POFA 2012 the RK may become liable. Others may comment, I'm wondering if this is a DVLA complaint issue.
matt285
QUOTE (Jujar @ Thu, 15 Aug 2013 - 10:03) *
I do not know if this helps, but the landowner sent me this picture yesterday of the signs on site?


To be honest this is quite an interesting one. They don't say anything about breach of contract, instead they pursue this as an "agreed sum" claim, i.e. if I park without a permit I accept to pay £100.

The point with this is, only if you are talking about breach of contract you need to show that your damages represent losses or a "genuine pre-estimate of losses". If (like here) they are not pursuing this as damages then this test will fail.

Could you perhaps upload an anonymised copy of the Parking Notice they issued you? Sometimes they break their own neck by referring to "breach of contract" there, so then it reverts to the normal angle.

However, we obviously have a lot of other appeal reasons - first and foremost the statutory safeguards of UCTA and UCCTR. And of course it will be questionnable whether those terms have been incorporated into a contract at all (and if there was one to begin with). However you haven't included any of those in your appeal so this needs adding to it...

I'm sure this will end well for you - But - I think the parking companies are getting cleverer...

so I would add the following two sections to your appeal:

Coming into existence of a valid contract

As stated above, it is unclear whether the Respondent pursues this claim for breach of a contract for parking, or whether it is for an agreed sum, between the Respondent and the driver of the vehicle. In either case however, it is a requirement that a valid contract was formed between the parties, and for such a contract to come into existence, a number of points need to be established:

1. Intention to Create Legal Relations: There must objectively be intentions between both parties to close a contract; intentions of only one of the two parties are insufficient. – In this case it is challenged that the driver had the relevant ICLR for a contract to be established, and the Respondent would need to provide proof that it is reasonable to assume that ICLR existed between the parties.
2. Offer and Incorporation of Terms: There must be an offer from the offeror which needs to be sufficiently exact to form a contract through the act of mere acceptance; and all terms of the offer need to be reasonably brought to the attention of the offeree before accepting, to be incorporated into any contract that was allegedly formed.
It should first be noted that the Respondent has so far not provided any statement as to how such a contract would have been created, despite the Appellant having specifically requested this in the appeal.
It is however assumed by the Appellant that the offer was allegedly communicated by the offeror (the Respondent) to the offeree (the driver) through notices on site. In this case, it will be necessary for the Respondent to show that it was reasonable that the driver was made sufficiently aware of all terms of the offer before accepting (see below).
It can however already be stated by the Appellant due to the way that the signs are erected on site that the signs that may potentially be claimed by the Respondent to give sufficient notice, will have failed to do so for the location in question. There is no reasonable (and indeed possible) way that a driver would be able to notice any of the terms on this sign before entering the land. Even after having entered the land and before parking the car, there is no reasonable (or possible) way that a driver would be able to read through the terms of those notices and agree with them. Thus it will be impossible for the offeror to having brought to the attention of the offeree the purported terms before the offeree has completely parked their vehicle.
Due to the Respondent’s failure to substantiate this claim in any way, it is thus challenged that: (a) there was a valid offer by the offeror; (b) the terms of the offer were made sufficiently clear at a point before the offeree could have accepted.
3. Acceptance of the Offer and all its Terms: The contract is brought into existence through offer and acceptance; it is understood that the Respondent claims that the driver of the vehicle accepted the Respondent's offer through the act of parking.
It is however unclear when exactly the offer (if there ever was one) was supposed to have been accepted by the driver - when he entered the site? When he entered the parking lot? When he drove into a parking bay? When he left the car? Since the Respondent has not provided any information regarding this, it is challenged that (and if so when) the driver of the vehicle has reasonably accepted an offer through any of his actions.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, in order to enable a driver to read through all the terms on the notices, it would only have been possible to park the car, walk up to the sign and read through it. This however would clearly be after the latest possible completion of the act of parking. In this case it is unclear (and it is thus challenged) how the driver would ever have entered into a contract for parking when he already completed the parking?
4. Consideration: For a contract to be valid and enforceable if not closed as a deed there needs to be consideration on both parts, i.e. from both the offeror (Respondent) and the offeree (driver). It is challenged that there is (legally) sufficient consideration by either of the alleged parties of the alleged contract. Consideration does not need to be adequate but needs to be sufficient to bring a contract into existence.
As follows from the above, in order to become aware of the purported terms, the driver would already have parked and only then read the notice, thus there would be no additional consideration from the offeree after becoming aware of the offer. And similarly, even if the offeror would have been able to provide parking spaces on behalf of the landowner, and even if this would be deemed as consideration, then there would also not be any additional consideration from the offeror since the parking of the vehicle would have already been completed.
It is well established that past consideration is not good consideration, so it is challenged that there is any legal consideration for this purported contract.
Finally, even if this whole situation would be seen as a collateral contract, the offeror cannot in fact renegotiate the terms of the existing contract without providing additional consideration, since even variations of existing contracts require additional consideration.
Note that all of this is somewhat hypothetical at this point due to the complete lack of the Respondent in providing sufficient detail concerning this point.

Unfair Charge

Should there have been a valid contract, and should the claim be for an agreed sum or for breach of the (allegedly applicable) terms and conditions, then it is challenged that the purported terms are fair under the reasonability test of s.11 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) or under the requirement of good faith of reg.5 Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Regulations 1999 (UCCTR).
In either case the term would thus have to be voided, thus also cancelling any purported contractual basis for liability to pay this charge.
nigelbb
The sign refers to displaying a "VALID PARKING PERMIT" without defining what that might be. I submit that as far as the OP is concerned they had displayed their valid permit given to them when they arrived. There are no instructions on the sign that the permit should include the date & vehicle registration number. If the instructions were on the permit itself that was too late as the contract was already finalised & we all know that T&Cs cannot be added after the contract is formed (see Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd & Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel among other cases).

The PPCs that rely on a sign stating that the motorist agrees to a charge of £xxx are on very dodgy ground because of UCTA and UCCTR as the contract is so one-sided & disproportionate. That is why the majority of PPCs including the largest (Parking Eye) rely on a claim damages for breach of contract although this is on dodgy ground too as again the sum is so disproportionate to the breach that it's obviously a penalty.
Jujar
This is great! I feel like we have now covered a lot of bases!

Attached is another draft with the new suggested sections.

Also photos of the ticket, not great, apologies but I was trying to avoid capturing personal data and have had to reduce the size to upload so not so easy to read
matt285
QUOTE (Jujar @ Thu, 15 Aug 2013 - 22:06) *
Also photos of the ticket, not great, apologies but I was trying to avoid capturing personal data and have had to reduce the size to upload so not so easy to read


Again they have avoided to use a single word that could sound like breach of contract - I'm sure they are trying to go down the route of "claim for agreed sum" rather than Liquidated Damages to circumvent the genuine pre-estimate of loss thing. So a lot may hinge on formation of contract as well as on unfair terms.

Could you do the same (as in uploading it) with the back of the ticket as well please, just to make sure they haven't mistakenly put something in after all?
Jujar
QUOTE (matt285 @ Thu, 15 Aug 2013 - 22:51) *
Could you do the same (as in uploading it) with the back of the ticket as well please, just to make sure they haven't mistakenly put something in after all?


Thanks.. The back of the ticket is entirely blank.

So i need emphasise formation of contract.. And i think that the contract does not stipulate what a valid ticket is - the instructions on the ticket are terms and conditions added after the formation of the contract?
nigelbb
QUOTE (Jujar @ Fri, 16 Aug 2013 - 08:56) *
QUOTE (matt285 @ Thu, 15 Aug 2013 - 22:51) *
Could you do the same (as in uploading it) with the back of the ticket as well please, just to make sure they haven't mistakenly put something in after all?


Thanks.. The back of the ticket is entirely blank.

So i need emphasise formation of contract.. And i think that the contract does not stipulate what a valid ticket is - the instructions on the ticket are terms and conditions added after the formation of the contract?

Yes.
Jujar
Ok, version 5.. I think I need to submit this tonight if possible. Any feedback? Thanks all so much! I am SO grateful!!
matt285
QUOTE (Jujar @ Fri, 16 Aug 2013 - 14:56) *
Ok, version 5.. I think I need to submit this tonight if possible. Any feedback? Thanks all so much! I am SO grateful!!


I think this should be fine smile.gif

Good luck!
nigelbb
Just a small point. Your appeal says that you received a Notice To Keeper the day of the event. What you actually received was a Notice To Driver. For future reference we advise recipient of a NTD to wait for the NTK to arrive as PPCs almost invariably screw up the issue of an NTK in some way so that they cannot pursue the vehicle keeper for the charge & cannot pursue the driver as they don't know who that was unless (as in this case) you tell them.


There i also a typo
QUOTE
The work fixed is akin
psimmons200
It looks as though they want the charge to be "£100 in exchange for parking without a permit" rather than "£100 liquidated damages".

So I would:

1. leave the stuff about pre-estimated losses in (why not?)

2. Create a part 4(2)( c):

The BPA Code of Practice states:

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable


If the sum claimed is such a "contractually agreed sum" rather than in the nature of damages for breach of contract/trespass, I also ask the adjudicator to assess the amount with regard to the above paragraph of the BPA's Code of Practice. The claimed sum of £100 is of a magnitude so as to clearly deter parking, rather than being a genuine offer of parking. It must, for this reason, be found to be punitive and unreasonable.

The sum of £100 is also in excess of the sum claimed by the local authority for "on street" parking infringements; these Penalty Charges Notices are penal as defined by statute; the Operator's sum, being in excess of this amount, is evidently punitive and unreasonable in nature.

As the Operator is a signatory to all parts of the BPA's Code of Practice, breach of Part 19.6 on this occasion would necessarily see the Operator estopped from pursuing the matter further.
matt285
QUOTE (psimmons200 @ Fri, 16 Aug 2013 - 21:20) *
As the Operator is a signatory to all parts of the BPA's Code of Practice, breach of Part 19.6 on this occasion would necessarily see the Operator estopped from pursuing the matter further.


Estoppel is an interesting angle here. Not sure though if any of the POPLA assessors have heard about this? wink.gif
Jujar
You guys are amazing! I am so grateful. I have added all the new suggestions. I genuinely could not have done this without Pepipoo! I am gonna submit it now and will report back..
Jujar
I just wanted to thank everyone who helped me put my appeal together from the bottom of my heart. My appeal was allowed and the charge over turned. Yay!
Jlc
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 6 Nov 2013 - 12:42) *
I just wanted to thank everyone who helped me put my appeal together from the bottom of my heart. My appeal was allowed and the charge over turned. Yay!

Good stuff.
matt285
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 6 Nov 2013 - 12:42) *
I just wanted to thank everyone who helped me put my appeal together from the bottom of my heart. My appeal was allowed and the charge over turned. Yay!


Congrats. Can you upload the appeal decision for the benefit of all please?
Jujar
I certainly will do later when I have the means.. the parking company did not even bother to submit any evidence so I automatically won
matt285
QUOTE (Jujar @ Wed, 6 Nov 2013 - 14:20) *
I certainly will do later when I have the means.. the parking company did not even bother to submit any evidence so I automatically won


Seems to happen a lot as of late. I think they're cutting their losses and don't even bother to spend any time on defending a POPLA appeal that they're bound to lose anyways wink.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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.