Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Highview Parking Fine - Free Car Park
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
teulk
I have just received a letter from Highview Parking for the following carpark -The Victoria Centre, Consett

It was my wife who parked there as her friend (she was with her at the time)who lives in that area told her it was free, as she was told it was free she simply drive in and parked up without taking notice of any signage. Now a quick google indicates the car park is indeed free

http://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/consett/

Of course i understand that saying" i was told it was free" is no defense, the problem is the price of the penalty/fine or what ever the correct term is its excessive. If the car park is free for 2hrs and no further charge is required to park there after then Highview Parking have lost no money at all. She could have parked there for 100yrs and they would have lost nothing as its free park. She is simply guilty of overstaying in a free car park which has still resulted in no loss for Highview as again its free to park.

How do you suggest i proceed with this, i have read a lot and heard a lot of people saying "just ignore it", i have no problem with doing that but if push came to shove i would at least like some up to date information that they have no right to enforce any payment.

As my wife was driving but it was sent to me as the registered keeper do i have to give them my wife's details ? If i don't legally have to give them the drivers details can i refuse to pay on them grounds and that it is in fact their responsibility to prove i was driving if they wish to pursue any claim against me ? Again if possible i would like some up to date proof that legally i don't need to supply them with this information.

If it was a pay and display then i would begrudgingly pay the early £50 fee but as this is a free car park they have lost no revenue.

Thanks for your help in advance
The Slithy Tove
Your questions and comments suggest you've done very little research so far on the topic. So can I suggest you start here. Gives you all the ins and outs of these fake tickets, why you don't pay, and what you need to do.
StrangeMan
I've beaten Highview myself, for almost the exact same issue, overstaying on a free for two hours car park. I think you can search on here for posts by me. Take a good look at that. Follow the appeals processes - Appeal to Highview first which they will reject and should give you a POPLA code. Appeal to POPLA using GPEOL as your main argument (as per my appeal to them) and wait for POPLA to find in your favour. This process costs Highview money and you do not need to pay a thing.

Keep records of all your transactions/communications with Highview and POPLA.

Start off by doing some searching and reading on this forum. If you do it right you will win.

One last thing - you never need to name the driver. It's not relevant.

Edit - My original reason for being here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry897971
teulk
QUOTE (StrangeMan @ Sat, 12 Jul 2014 - 23:36) *
I've beaten Highview myself, for almost the exact same issue, overstaying on a free for two hours car park. I think you can search on here for posts by me. Take a good look at that. Follow the appeals processes - Appeal to Highview first which they will reject and should give you a POPLA code. Appeal to POPLA using GPEOL as your main argument (as per my appeal to them) and wait for POPLA to find in your favour. This process costs Highview money and you do not need to pay a thing.

Keep records of all your transactions/communications with Highview and POPLA.

Start off by doing some searching and reading on this forum. If you do it right you will win.

One last thing - you never need to name the driver. It's not relevant.

Edit - My original reason for being here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry897971


Much appreciated, thanks
StrangeMan
QUOTE (teulk @ Sun, 13 Jul 2014 - 10:05) *
QUOTE (StrangeMan @ Sat, 12 Jul 2014 - 23:36) *
I've beaten Highview myself, for almost the exact same issue, overstaying on a free for two hours car park. I think you can search on here for posts by me. Take a good look at that. Follow the appeals processes - Appeal to Highview first which they will reject and should give you a POPLA code. Appeal to POPLA using GPEOL as your main argument (as per my appeal to them) and wait for POPLA to find in your favour. This process costs Highview money and you do not need to pay a thing.

Keep records of all your transactions/communications with Highview and POPLA.

Start off by doing some searching and reading on this forum. If you do it right you will win.

One last thing - you never need to name the driver. It's not relevant.

Edit - My original reason for being here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry897971


Much appreciated, thanks


How are you getting on with the reading/appealing?
teulk
Ok, so i've had a letter back from Highview Parking rejecting my appeal, he is a copy of what i intend to send to Popla. Any comments will be appreciated

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg
PPC: Highview Parking Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN: 04th July 2014

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £85 (discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of exceeding the duration of maximum stay permitted at the FREE Victoria Centre, Consett on the 04th July 2014 by 47minutes. This issue date on the invoice is 10th July 2014.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following
grounds:

1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
4. Signage
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. Business Rates
7. Summary

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £85 (discounted to £50 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“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.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none as this is a free car park) by Highview Parking Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Highview Parking Ltd. lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £2.50 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Highview Parking Ltd. must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Highview Parking Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the Highview Parking Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the Highview Parking Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Highview Parking Ltd. 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.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Highview Parking Ltd. Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Highview Parking Ltd. Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Signage
The first sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a low wall on the driver side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle. The ANPR picture of my vehicle entering the car park shows an exiting vehicle blocking the view of this sign. Exiting vehicles makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from. The sign should be placed so that it is always readable by drivers, I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

7. Business Rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., I do not believe that HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD. has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.
I put Highview Parking Ltd. to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at The Victoria Centre, Consett car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

8. Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Yours faithfully
cabbyman
Highview insist on throwing £27 away on a regular basis. I've won three POPLAs against them on virtually identical grounds as you have shown above. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile Highview setting up a standing order to POPLA?????
RD400E
teulk, does your rejection letter or any other correspondence refer to an account? 'Your account'

I believe this to me a major flaw in the PPC's attack as an account has to be a mutual agreement by consent between two parties. This cannot be conveyed by signage.

They may rely upon the T+C's of the notices dotted around but if they are mentioning account in any form then you have grounds to ask them to prove one exists.
teulk
QUOTE (RD400E @ Mon, 21 Jul 2014 - 20:17) *
teulk, does your rejection letter or any other correspondence refer to an account? 'Your account'

I believe this to me a major flaw in the PPC's attack as an account has to be a mutual agreement by consent between two parties. This cannot be conveyed by signage.

They may rely upon the T+C's of the notices dotted around but if they are mentioning account in any form then you have grounds to ask them to prove one exists.


No mention of "account in the rejection letter. I will upload their letter later on tonight if i can. I'm sure is a standard letter they send out though. I did notice one sentence, they said " We have noticed that you have used a template letter. In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected"

Now that reads to me that one of the reasons they rejected my appeal is due to the fact i used a Template Letter!
RD400E
QUOTE (teulk @ Mon, 21 Jul 2014 - 20:30) *
QUOTE (RD400E @ Mon, 21 Jul 2014 - 20:17) *
teulk, does your rejection letter or any other correspondence refer to an account? 'Your account'

I believe this to me a major flaw in the PPC's attack as an account has to be a mutual agreement by consent between two parties. This cannot be conveyed by signage.

They may rely upon the T+C's of the notices dotted around but if they are mentioning account in any form then you have grounds to ask them to prove one exists.


No mention of "account in the rejection letter. I will upload their letter later on tonight if i can. I'm sure is a standard letter they send out though. I did notice one sentence, they said " We have noticed that you have used a template letter. In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected"

Now that reads to me that one of the reasons they rejected my appeal is due to the fact i used a Template Letter!



Wow!! So they noticed it was a 'template letter' and rejected it on that ground? It doesn't matter if it's a template or not, they have to give reasons for refusal to points in the appeal. I think they've just shot themselves well and truly in the foot. Take them to Popla. I hope they gave you an appeal code?
teulk
QUOTE (RD400E @ Mon, 21 Jul 2014 - 20:38) *
QUOTE (teulk @ Mon, 21 Jul 2014 - 20:30) *
QUOTE (RD400E @ Mon, 21 Jul 2014 - 20:17) *
teulk, does your rejection letter or any other correspondence refer to an account? 'Your account'

I believe this to me a major flaw in the PPC's attack as an account has to be a mutual agreement by consent between two parties. This cannot be conveyed by signage.

They may rely upon the T+C's of the notices dotted around but if they are mentioning account in any form then you have grounds to ask them to prove one exists.


No mention of "account in the rejection letter. I will upload their letter later on tonight if i can. I'm sure is a standard letter they send out though. I did notice one sentence, they said " We have noticed that you have used a template letter. In light of this, on this occasion, your representations have been carefully considered and rejected"

Now that reads to me that one of the reasons they rejected my appeal is due to the fact i used a Template Letter!



Wow!! So they noticed it was a 'template letter' and rejected it on that ground? It doesn't matter if it's a template or not, they have to give reasons for refusal to points in the appeal. I think they've just shot themselves well and truly in the foot. Take them to Popla. I hope they gave you an appeal code?



I will let you make your own minds up as to the full rejection reason once ive uploaded the letter. It does however seem to me that the use of a template letter is one of the reasons they rejected my appeal. I may just be reading it wrong but if it didn't factor into their rejection reasons then they wouldn't have mentioned it surely? Yeah i have a popla code
Jlc
Ironic as they use templates themselves... Templates don't change the facts.
teulk
Here is a copy of the text of the letter

farmerboy
we will hold the charge at the current rate of £50

Desperate last ditch attempt to salvage something from the situation.

err!!!! So you wont give us £100. How about £50 then....please

google parking prankster highview for some more Highview hilarity.
teulk
I won against Highview, here is the letter



Absolutely over the moon.
StrangeMan
Well done. Looks like Highview just cave rather than try to get anything past POPLA these days.
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.