Great, thank you for your help
Does this look ok? :-
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: 23 November 2013, 11:11 To 12.24
Date of PCN: 3 November 2013
On 5 November 2013 I was sent a charge notice from Excel Parking requiring payment of a charge of £60 for the alleged parking contravention.
I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner
2 No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss
3 Excel Parking rejected my appeal outside the 35 day limit
1. Lack of the PPC's proprietary interest in the land and no contract with the landowner.
I believe that Excel Parking have no proprietary interest in the land to issue charges and pursue them in their own name, including at court level. If they do have such interest then I put them to strict proof to provide POPLA with the Deeds of Title in the land.
In the absence of such title, Excel Parking must have contractual authority from the landowner to issue and pursue charges. I do not believe such a document is in existence.
I therefore put Excel Parking to strict proof to provide POPLA with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between them and the landowner which provides them with the authority to issue and pursue charges, including to pursue them at court in their own name. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between Excel Parking and the landowner will be insufficient to provide all the required information, and will therefore be unsatisfactory.
2. Punitive/unfair/unreasonable charge. No Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss.
The Department for Transport guidelines state, in Section 16 Frequently Asked Questions, that:
"Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver."
In this case, Excel Parking has failed to provide any calculation to show how the £60 figure is arrived at, whether as an actual or pre-estimated loss. It is the Appellant's position that Excel Parking has suffered no loss whatsoever in this case.
Even if there was a contract (which is denied), the £60 parking charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass. There has been no loss to the landowner as a ticket was purchased and displayed.
I put Excel Parking to strict proof to provide POPLA with a ‘Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss’ incurred due to my vehicle being parked on this land.
This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.
3.Excel Parking rejected my appeal outside the 35 day limit
I lodged my appeal against the PCN to Excel Parking by email at 09.45 on 12/12/2013 and did not receive the rejection of this appeal until 17/1/2014 by post. By my calculation this is 36 days. Again I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.