Jump to content

markavfc

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by markavfc

  1. I am not aware of any changes that would mean the reasons I used for refusing to pay would not now work. Good luck but I don't think you'll need it.
  2. Cheers for all your help. I am obviously pleased it is all done with at this point but fully understand in the grand scheme of things it would have been better to set a precedent. I hope you are right about the Villa. If you have been a bit of jinx then might well be best you stay away although you wouldn't be alone in being a jinx. I have a season ticket and missed one game at home last season due to having an operation and it turned out it was one of two games we won at home so I missed 50% of our wins
  3. Hi all, Just had a response from POPLA reference my appeal. Here it is: Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA. An Appeal has been opened with the reference 3**********. Defence Systems Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge. Yours sincerely POPLA Team Thanks to all those who helped with this. Really appreciated.
  4. Thanks again to anyone who has helped me. I have submitted the appeal. There was insufficient space for me to enter the details in the summary box on the POPLA site so I attached and submitted a word document which formed the basis of the appeal and stated in the summary box that they should refer to the attached document. How long does it usually take for them to look into the appeal? They have sent me an email saying appeal submitted successfully.
  5. Thanks ericsbrother. Based on what you and silverfox have said I have changed it to the below. I will submit it later and update as soon as I get an acknowledgement. I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Park Watch Ltd. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge: 1) No registered keeper liability 2) No contractual obligation or breach of contract as signage is prohibitive and therefore only landowner may sue for tort of trespass. 3) The alleged contravention did not take place 4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers 5) Misleading and unclear signage 1) No registered keeper liability. The incident described is by no stretch of the imagination 'parking' so they cannot invoke POFA 2012 in order to claim keeper liability. The driver has not been identified, yet Park Watch Ltd are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. 2) No contractual obligation or breach of contract as signage is prohibitive and therefore only landowner my sue for tort of trespass. ( as per Masterson, Ahktar and the High Wycombe 3) 3) The alleged contravention did not take place The occurrence alleged is not a "parking event" within the terms of Protection of Freedoms Act. As per point 2 above no contravention can take place and no breach of contract has occurred. The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full. This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘entered no access area’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply. There was no parking contravention at all. Park Watch Ltd are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place. 4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers Park Watch Ltd has no authority or lacks sufficient authority to issue charges in relation to alleged occurrences. The Operator does not own the land in question and have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary nor agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent). In order to comply with the BPA code of practice, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons: a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract or that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practice to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers. b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provides a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency. Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, 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 the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed. I would remind the Operator of their obligation to provide the Appellant with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent with sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal. 5) Misleading and unclear signage Park Watch Ltd signage or the signage they are intending to rely upon in this case is deficient in the sense that there are insufficient signs to be seen by motorists when entering the area and that in any event the signage is incapable of establishing the basis of a contract. It possible for drivers to enter this road without seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and Park Watch Ltd. The entrance sign is situated on the side of the road on a standard right hand UK car, this makes it difficult for the driver to see or read from inside the car regardless of which side of the road the car park is entered from. All these reasons make it possible for drivers to enter the area in question without seeing the signage upon entering. As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. I request that my appeal is allowed.
  6. Thanks silverfox. I will change the wording as you suggested and wait until ericsbrother has commented before sending into POPLA.
  7. Thanks again for the advice. Based on this and the research I have done would the below be OK to send to POPLA: I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Park Watch Ltd. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge: 1) Not relevant Land under POFA 2012; no registered keeper liability 2) No contractual obligation or breach of contract as signage is prohibitive and therefore only landowner may sue for tort of trespass. 3) The alleged contravention did not take place 4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers 5) Misleading and unclear signage 1) The location is not "relevant land" within the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act and no registered keeper liability. The incident described is by no stretch of the imagination 'parking' so they cannot invoke POFA 2012 in order to claim keeper liability. The driver has not been identified, yet Park Watch Ltd are claiming POFA 2012 registered keeper liability for this charge. 2) No contractual obligation or breach of contract as signage is prohibitive and therefore only landowner my sue for tort of trespass. ( as per Masterson, Ahktar and the High Wycombe 3) 3) The alleged contravention did not take place The occurrence alleged is not a "parking event" within the terms of Protection of Freedoms Act. The relevant part of the POFA states –(The notice must) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full. This paragraph in no way applies to the alleged contravention which is ‘entered no access area’. The Parking Charge Notice does not apply to the driver of the vehicle having entered a car park where charges apply nor does it refer to any specified period of parking where parking charges apply. There was no parking contravention at all. Park Watch Ltd are not able to refer to a regulation that applies to stopping on the road. No contravention applicable to POFA actually took place. 4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers Park Watch Ltd has no authority or lacks sufficient authority to issue charges in relation to alleged occurrences. The Operator does not own the land in question and have provided no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a Driver or Keeper. They own neither proprietary nor agency rights and hold no title or share of the land. I do not believe that they have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a Driver of a vehicle parking there or to allege a breach of contract in their own name as creditor. I believe that at best they may hold a site agreement limited to issuing tickets and as such I require that they provide POPLA with an unredacted copy of the actual contract with the landowner (not a lessee or managing agent). In order to comply with the BPA code of practice, this contract must specifically grant the Operator the right to pursue parking charges in their own name as creditor, please note that a witness statement such as a signed letter to the effect that such a contract exists will be insufficient to provide all the required information and therefore be unsatisfactory for the following reasons: a) Some parking companies have provided 'witness statements' instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof that the alleged signatory has ever seen the contract or that they are employed by the Landowner. Such a statement would not show whether any payment has been made to the Operator which would obviously affect any 'loss' calculations. Furthermore it would not serve to provide proof that the contract includes the necessary authority required by the BPA Code of Practice to allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name as creditor and to enter into contracts with drivers. b) In POPLA case 1771073004, it was ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. If the Operator provides a witness statement merely confirming the existence of a contract but no unredacted copy of that contract then POPLA should rule this evidence invalid in the interests of fairness and consistency. Even if a basic contract is produced that mentions parking charge notices, 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 the Operator and the Landowner containing nothing that the Operator can lawfully use in their own name as mere agent that could impact on a third party customer. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge dismissed. I would remind the Operator of their obligation to provide the Appellant with a copy of any evidence provided to POPLA as requested sent with sufficient time for consideration and rebuttal. 5) Misleading and unclear signage Park Watch Ltd signage or the signage they are intending to rely upon in this case is deficient in the sense that there are insufficient signs to be seen by motorists when entering the area and that in any event the signage is incapable of establishing the basis of a contract. It possible for drivers to enter this road without seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and Park Watch Ltd. The entrance sign is situated on the side of the road on a standard right hand UK car, this makes it difficult for the driver to see or read from inside the car regardless of which side of the road the car park is entered from. All these reasons make it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signage upon entering. As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”. The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. I request that my appeal is allowed.
  8. Hi all. Please see attached response form Park Watch. As expected they rejected my appeal. Basically said they have taken into consideration the mitigation that I provided but have decided the parking charge was correctly issued for failing to comply with the parking conditions and that there are clearly signs stating that vehicles should not enter and stop in the bus only interchange at any time including two No Entry signs, a bus only sign instruction and four high visibility warning signs. I can’t dispute the no entry signs and buses only signs but I am not sure what the four high visibility signs they refer to are. Regardless the PCN is a parking charge and isn’t a fine for entering a no entry. I guess my next step as per the letter they have sent me is to now appeal to POPLA. Can anyone now please advise on what grounds I should do this.
  9. I have kept it simple as advised and just written to them stating: "With reference to your recent letter reference number 3*****. As the keeper I will not be paying this so called charge as there is no contractual obligation and you have not complied with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. " I will update once they have written back to me with the POPLA code. Thanks again for all the advice.
  10. I have changed it to “As the keeper I”. Thanks for your advice. What other grounds will I now be able to appeal on?
  11. I have done as stated and removed the second so it now simply reads: With reference to your recent letter reference number 3*****. The driver will not be paying this so called charge as there is no contractual obligation and you have not complied with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I assume all I am doing at this stage is getting a POPLA code and I then do a more detailed response to them. I have done a little research and found that someone else had an appeal by POPLA allowed for exactly the same circumstance/location as mine relates to. This was pre Beavis though in 2014 so would Beavis make a difference to this? Below is the POPLA decision. Could I use this exact case in my appeal to POPLA? Kevin ***** (Appellant) -v- Defence Systems Limited (Operator) The Operator issued parking charge notice number 3***** arising out of the presence at One Stop Shopping Centre, on ****** 2014, of a vehicle with registration mark ******. The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge. The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed. The Assessor’s reasons are as set out. The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith. 3******** * ******* 2014 Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination On ******** 2014 the operator issued a parking charge notice to a vehicle with registration mark ********. The operator’s employee recorded that the vehicle entered a no access area. The appellant raised many grounds of appeal; however I shall only deal with the ground upon which the appeal is being allowed. Specifically, the appellant submitted that the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Appellants are not to be expected to use legal terminology. In this case, it appears to be the appellant’s case that the parking charge is in fact sum for specified damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance and so should be proportionate to the loss suffered. Accordingly, the charge must be shown not to be punitive. This is illustrated by the operator providing a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which reflects the parking charge. The onus is on the operator to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, once an appellant submits that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the onus is on the operator to produce some explanation or evidence to tip the balance in its further. In this case the operator has stated that as the parking charge is not in excess of £100 they feel they do not have to justify the parking charge as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I am not minded to accept that it is sufficient to do this. Once the appellant raises the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss, the operator must either argue that the charge is consideration (i.e. the price paid for parking) and so does not have to be a genuine pre-estimate, or that it is liquidated damages in which case the charge must be justified as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The operator has done neither in this case. Consequently I must find that the operator has failed to discharge their burden. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. ***************** Assessor
  12. I have written a letter containing all requested details (address, vehicle reg, their reference etc) and I have stated this: With reference to your recent letter reference number 3*****. The driver will not be paying this so called charge as there is no contractual obligation and you have not complied with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In addition the so called charge cannot be true as there was no loss incurred and any action can only be taken by the landowner unless proven different by way of an uredacted copy of a contract. Does this sound OK? if so I will post it today. Thanks for all the advice.
  13. Ok so based on all the information given I will just keep it simple and write/email them and state I will not be paying this so called charge as: There is no contractual obligation and they have not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In addition the so called charge cannot be true as there was no loss incurred and that any action can only be taken by the landowner unless proven different by way of an uredacted copy of the contract. Is it best to write to them or email them at the appeals email address they have provided? Thanks again.
  14. Hi. Thanks for all your help. Can you just clarify a couple of things. You mention paragraphs 8 and 9 of POFA. I have looked at these on the link silverfox gave in post 13. Para 8 refers to Trespass and I assume my argument would be that the charges aren’t appropriate and the landholder must be able to show he or she has suffered a loss and justify the damages they are seeking to recover for the trespass. Para 9 refers to Access to DVLA registered keeper records. Could you let me know what argument I would be putting forward in regard to this please. Thanks
  15. Thank you for all the advice. I will do as advised. They state I can write to them at their appeals address or they have an appeal email address. Does it make any difference which option I use to contact them?
  16. I have now been out to the location and this is the sign just before where I entered. Can I have your guys thoughts on this please and if this means I will have to pay. Thanks Mark
  17. Thank you for all the help so far. I am going to go out to the location today and take a picture of the signs to get the wording. Ericsbrother you stated their NTK isn’t compliant “with paras 8 or 9 of the POFA and in any case there is no contract to breach” can you let me know how they aren’t compliant and also what you mean by no contract to breach. Would I just send them an email stating that they aren’t compliant and that there is no contract to breach? I have attached an image showing the reverse of the letter which gives further info. Thanks Mark
  18. Hi, Thank you for the quick reply. I can get a picture of that sign and upload it later showing the wording. I have attached a picture of the location showing signs. Thanks Mark
  19. Hi all. First time poster on here. I received the attached the attached parking charge notice a couple of days ago. It is from a company called park watch and states I entered a no access area on private land and provides photographic evidence showing this. I cannot dispute that I did this. The location was One Stop Shopping Centre in Perry Barr, Birmingham. My question is would I have any grounds of appeal? Any information/advice much appreciated. Many thanks Mark
×
×
  • Create New...