Ive had 2 tickets from care parking and soft appealed both with exactly the same appeal, theyve cancelled one ticket not the other! I understand that the Metrolink is not relevant land under the pofa and along the gpeol I want to include it in my appeal. Can anyone point me in the right direction as I cant seem to find much on it. Thanks

Ah that sounds good to me. They claim she didnt purchase a P&D ticket because their machine didnt have her registration number logged, would that be relevant?

the letter says "the contractually agreed terms were breached". Im going through the popla appeal and editing it to suit her, havent got to nandos yet What could I delete to trim it a little?

They are saying that the P&D machines are tied into the ANPR system and they dish out tickets according to whos entered their VRM into the P&D machines, I know this is nonsense as I park there a lot myself. They also call her the driver having already stated that she hasnt told them who the driver was. The letter is just plain silly! So far I have this.... Dear POPLA adjudicator, I am writing to appeal against a parking charge levied by Excel Parking Services Ltd on 04/07/2014. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned. The grounds for my appeal are as follows : 1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice section 19. Excel Parking Services Ltd (Excel) must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so Excel have no cause of action to pursue this charge. I specified in my original appeal that I did not believe their charge to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, Excel replied stating that the charge is in line with BPA code of practise and therefore “deemed reasonable”. This reply completely fails to demonstrate that the whole charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”. Excel cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe Excel are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown Excel supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to my next appeal point. 2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Excel must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that Excel merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Excel to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unreacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Excel and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). 3) ANPR - Inaccuracy and Non-compliance, including lack of ANPR data usage signs I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which 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. 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.'' No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary with records and photos. 4) Unfair terms The terms that the Operator is alleging create a contract, were not reasonable, not individually negotiated and caused a significant imbalance - to my potential detriment. Therefore, this charge is an unreasonable indemnity clause under section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which says: ‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’ Further, the charge contravenes The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 : Schedule 2 : Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair” 1(e) “Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.” 5(1) ''A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.'' From the Office of Fair Trading’s 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999': Group 5 : Financial penalties – paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2: 5.1 “It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for a breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.” Group 18(a): Allowing the supplier to impose unfair financial burdens '18.1.3 These objections are less likely to arise if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances. However, as already noted, transparency is not necessarily enough on its own to make a term fair. Fairness requires that the substance of contract terms, not just their form and the way they are used, shows due regard for the legitimate interests of consumers. Therefore a term may be clear as to what the consumer has to pay, but yet be unfair if it amounts to a 'disguised penalty', that is, a term calculated to make consumers pay excessively for doing something that would normally be a breach of contract. 19.14 The concern of the Regulations is with the 'object or effect' of terms, not their form. A term that has the mechanism of a price term...will not be treated as exempt if it is clearly calculated to produce the same effect as an unfair exclusion clause, penalty, variation clause or other objectionable term.' I contend the above describes the charge exactly as an 'unfair financial burden'. The charge is designed ostensibly to be a deterrent, but is in fact a disguised penalty, issued by a third party agent which is not the landowner and has no assignment of title. Such a charge would normally be restricted to the landowner themselves claiming for any damages or loss - which was nothing as the driver was in Nandos which has free parking, if the driver had only been informed of that by clearer and transparent signage in the various areas of this car park.The charge of £100 imposed by Excel constitutes an unfair term as it is disproportionate with respect to the alleged infringement.

Im sorting out a parking charge notice from Excel for a friend, its an Iceland car park and has a new pub opened next door to it, that’s where the friend was for just over the 3 hour time limit. Iceland was closed and the car park was otherwise empty. Its ANPR cameras not patrolled and she got the ntk by post within the time limit, so they have followed procedures so far. We soft appealed, they rejected and we now have the popla code. My question is an I simply cut and paste the template by coupon mad in post #20 and use it as a winning popla appeal from this.. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=64393064&highlight=#post64393064

Well Ive had a cuppa then relaxed and it would seem that Euro have dropped this as their charge is showing as 'paid or closed' on their website so it looks like they didn't want to fight on the GPEOL.

I've been reading about Euro and it would seem they have previous form for not replying and then claiming they did, what would happen if they tried that?

No I didn't respond to the NTD, instead waited for the notice to keeper then responded on their webpage and in writing with a proof of postage. Do you think they'll just start with the debt collector letters?

I got a PCN from Euro Car Parks and followed the new advice of appeal, but have had no confirmation from the company, shouldn't they have sent something within 14 days? Does it have to be by letter or can it be email? The appeal mentioned GPEOL. Their 35 days are up this week but its still showing as a live charge on their website.

I just put some random 'Ref , No.' in Icc Legal Services website and it informed me I owe just over sixty five and a half million pounds!

An update for this.... FOS had a letter back from TSB which basically said there is no debt with them, what they didn't say is that Lloyds had taken it on, so she hadn't heard back from FOS as they thought it had been sorted, they said TSB and Lloyds are now playing games and so are now going to write to Lloyds and ask whats going on. We have had lots of letters from Moorcroft and even one from Midas all posturing and trying to look scary but they go straight into the 'ignore' drawer, the latest one from them is offering a discount on the balance because 'they know customers are struggling at the moment', all we have to do is call them. Not a chance! Waiting now to see what response FOS get........

I have complained to the bank and their last letter stated 'our final response' so have exhausted that route, that's why I got her to call FOS. The bank never asked her when she closed the account or at which branch so any 'investigation' has been half hearted, they just turned round and said 'our records'. It really is bad though when she closes this account and because someone doesn't do their job properly she gets all this! Shes happy to ignore their pet debt collectors so will look forward to reading their rubbish as it arrives. How likely is it that TSB will take legal action for this amount?

Whats the likelihood of them doing that? The letters from TSB and Lloyds show different account numbers, yet she had one account with LloydsTSB.

I'm prepared for moorcroft to start posturing and she said to hell with them, I'll have a ccj before I pay them anything, but why do you say that they can do nothing?

Thanks for the comments, I think this has now gone to the next stage. My wife contacted FOS who said they will write to TSB and then contact her, in the meantime she gets a letter from Lloyds saying since she hasn't agreed to pay it back its going to a debt collector. She called FOS who said that was strange and they think that since TSB and Lloyds are now separate banks that they must be arguing who owns the account, so they are now going to write to TSB again and ask them what theyre playing at. Anyway this morning Moorcroft have written to her asking for payment before 'further action'

It seems to me that they make no record of the closure because someone doesn't do their job properly, and because there's no record it tough on the customer.

She had a letter from TSB today basically saying tough! They also said it's not their intention to threaten customers, so they threatened solicitors, court, debt collectors etc but they want to "treat customers fairly". The letter said their records don't show that they've made a mistake and that we didn't say which branch she closed the account so they cant check, they didn't ask either. So she went into a branch, closed the account, was given 6 odd pound balance in cash but they have no record. They also said she used her card in July to withdraw £15 at Tesco, even though it was a new card which she hadn't activated. I told her to call FOS and let them deal with it, they said even if it goes in the banks favour, the very worst they will do is send it to a debt collector, but they think once the bank finds out we sent it to FOS at a cost of £4-500 they will drop it just to try and recover £265.

I sent a letter to that address recorded delivery today, am also thinking of calling the FOS as their site says they will contact them on your behalf and make them aware. It seems to me theyre just ignoring us yet find it acceptable to keeps sending the threats and putting the amount owed up.

I sent a letter to their collections dept who are sending these letters, it was quite sarcastic but did say "complaint" at the top, I also sent in an online complaint because I couldn't find the address to write to. The online form said they will telephone but they haven't. I told her if they did to ask if it was to say this has all been cancelled and if not then to tell them she's not talking to them and put it in writing then hang up. Today she's had another demand which is exactly the same letter but the amount has gone up, interest I assume.

Thanks BB, as long as we are sure its their fault and we don't have to pay it then she will have the strength to fight it. The only problem as I can see is she has no proof that she closed the account, just simply returned everything. I will send in a complaint and see what happens.

Shes had another letter today threatening all sorts because she hasnt been in touch. Anyway she called up again to be told this time that her account wasnt closed properly and some payments went out and because of this, charges were added to her balance. They also said they intend to recover the amount outstanding. So it seems she surrendered her card, cheque book etc and closed the account with a £0 balance, someone didnt do their job properly so British Gas managed to debit some money and now theyre saying shes responsible and added charges for being overdrawn. They stated they will pass it to a debt collector before she put the phone down on them. The letter says they will reduce the balance if she agrees a payment plan. Any advise plz?

Yes its TSB headed letter. When she called she was told that the account number given on the letter does not exist so it hasn't been reopened according to that. This is the only letter or contact she has had from them since closing her account. The letter says she will be unable to withdraw money until she pays the £15.57p directly to her branch.

My wife had an account with lloydstsb which she closed several months ago with a £0 balance, she surrendered her bank cards and thought that was that. Today she's had a letter saying her account is overdrawn by £265.57!!! It seems there is a £250 overdraft and they want £15.57 to get back within the overdraft limit. The letter goes on to threaten all sorts so she called the number on the letter giving the reference number only to be told that there is no such account, they went on to say that someone would call back to discuss the contents of the letter, needless to say no one rang back. Is it at all possible that they can claim this money from her?

I could name a few!

I read that thread, I wanted a little sport with them for the trouble they have caused both now and previously.