NCP PCCN - Machine Faulty - POPLA Sent **Won**

[123NeilyB]

Hello CAG,

First post ever... have been a lurker for a long time, and now need some advice myself!

 

This is the email sent to NCP on 12th December 2013:

-----

Dear Sirs,

I have received PCCN#: (photo attached) this evening after parking my vehicle at your car park at Ickenham Underground Station.

I have contacted the number on the parking ticket itself to report that the machine is FAULTY and they have asked that I contact yourself in regards to the PCCN.

 

Upon purchasing my ticket on MONDAY 9th DECEMBER 2013, your machine did NOT state the expiry DATE or TIME. Just the PAYMENT AMOUNT and the DAY/MONTH. No expiry TIME was shown. The machine is STILL doing this. Please see the attached photo this evening which shows exactly the same as Monday, and just shows the expiry as FRIDAY.

This to me, as the consumer, means that parking is covered for the WHOLE of the day, not just until 02:59 on THURSDAY/FRIDAY as this is actually printed on the ticket.

 

I aware that it’s up to me to check the ticket issued is correct via the machine, but I was in rush on Monday and just put my card in, chose the number of days, so pressing + to move the day till Thursday and pressed the green button... If I had known I needed to buy the ticket until 02:59am on FRIDAY, I would have.

Please be aware that I have been using the machine and the one at North Ealing underground station for over SIX YEARS so have paid a substantial amount of parking fees to your company, let alone the parking fees I pay when in other towns and city’s across the UK.

And, to be honest, as the machine just STATES on the screen, THURSDAY, then in effect this means, the WHOLE of THURSDAY.

 

If you have any queries in regards to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Kind regards,

123NeilyB

-----

 

NCP then replied back on the 30th December 2013, saying basically my fault... should have checked the ticket, and YES, in theory I agree with this but on the type of machine in the NCP operated London Underground car parks, if you have to park more than 1 day you press the '+' button to increase the day, which I did and scrolled it along to Thursday, and even though ive been using different car parks with the SAME machines, didnt clock (haha) that the expiry time was missing.

In my eyes, the MACHINE was faulty and sold me the wrong ticket. If the time had been working then I would have paid for the extra day...

 

NCP included the link to POPLA, which I have done, and appeal hearing day is this Thursday, 6th Feb.

 

What do you think my chances are of POPLA telling NCP to cancel the PCCN?

All in all, I owe NCP a days parking in effect, which is £4, but they want £75 as per the PCCN (no discount for early payment either!).

 

I have attached a photo of the machine, which if you look above where there is a small dot, that part should display the time...

 

Cheers, thanks & keep up the good work!

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

That picture is frankly irrelevant, in fact anything that happened on the day is irrelevent

Did you appeal on the grounds of not a genuine pre estimate of loss or no contract, it is likely that you will loose if you didnt.

Even you may be to late, it may be worth asking Popla (by email) to delay the hearing (likely to be delayed anyway, the date is just a guide) and ask them to include the extra times of Genuine pre estimate of loss and no contract

 

Get searching round what that means and get it email accross

 

Eveni if you loose, i wouldnt worry to much with this bunch, so dont think about paying if you do

[123NeilyB]

Hiya. Cheers for replying so quick.

Nope, I just basically told POPLA what I emailed off to NCP and sent it off...

 

Just been having a read about "Genuine pre estimate of loss or no contract" and then checked the PCCN...

It waffles on, (what a waste of paper) abd states 'breach of contractual terns and conditions displated in this car park' waffle continues...

 

So, just been reading about POPLA on parkingcowboys and it states this in regards to contracts:

---

Punitive charges

 

The Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was brought in to protect consumers from unfair contracts made with traders – it is discussed in detail on our legal enforcement page. In short, the law was drawn up to stop a trader from punishing a consumer financially as part of a contract. Since private parking tickets are usually issued under contract law, and parking tickets are typically disproportionate compared to the cost of parking (e.g. free or £1 an hour or so), one may use this law to challenge a ticket at POPLA. In one recent example, a motorist appealed on the basis that the £100 parking charge notice was punitive. The parking company did not disprove this in their evidence, and so the assessor allowed the appeal.

 

This appeal point can be used if the parking ticket is being enforced as a contractual charge (as opposed to damages or loss). As part of your appeal you need to state that you believe the charge to be punitive, and then the burden of proof is on the parking company to prove that it is not.

---

 

How should I put this into the appeal to POPLA or the email them to say hold off etc...

Basically, they want £75.00 for a £4 daily charge (!!)

 

Cheers v much

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

send email to [email protected] and [email protected] Stating with your popla appeal number at top of subject,that you wish to add further evidence and ask for the hearing to be delayed and send in the following:

 

 

1. No valid contract with landowner

 

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.

In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

 

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory

is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

 

 

2. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

 

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

 

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

 

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

 

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

[ericsbrother]

Simply, you paid the charge and they have made no loss by your action. Therefore any claim is a penalty as it is in excess of their loss (nothing). Whatever POPLA syas NCP would be very stupid to try and enforce a claim against you for this and I bet they know it so they will send you letters to frighten you into thinking they are somehow right.

[123NeilyB]

Hiya.

So, yesterday was a right pain in posteria!

Sent over what you said to them, and gave them a courtesy call because this is stated on the POPLA website:

---

If additional evidence arrives shortly before the Assessor is due to consider your case, the matter may have to be adjourned. If it arrives after the decision is made, it will be too late to be considered.

---

Called them and the call handlers and team leaders were adament that I had until 7 calender days BEFORE the hearing date to submit additional evidence. They also said that this '7 day' cutoff was also included on the email from them - it wasnt...

 

Was given the run around and told to call London Councils to explain - who told me to contact POPLA...

I then went berserk at POPLA and asked to speak with Richard Reeve, and after a lot of to'ing and fro'ing another supervisor agreed to pass this over to him and arrange a call back...

 

Whilst waiting for the call, I sent this follow up e-mail:

---

Dear Sirs,

After a phone call of over an hour long, I am still none the wiser of whether additional evidence information can or cannot be submitted to my case.

I sent the below through earlier on and made a courtesy call to yourselves to check whether or not this was acceptable.

 

During this phone call I am advised by your call centre that I was previously sent an email that said that all evidence information must be received within 7 days of the appeal date. I am sorry, this has never been received. The only actual emails I have received is one from London Councils which just includes information that I inputted into the POPLA website, and then another email (attached) which is the appeal acknowledgement letter. This email does NOT state the expiration date for submitting evidence.

Your call centre and case management colleagues who they have spoken with advise that this is correct.

I then check the POPLA website and it advises this:

 

If additional evidence arrives shortly before the Assessor is due to consider your case, the matter may have to be adjourned. If it arrives after the decision is made, it will be too late to be considered.

 

The above states that if information received shortly before – when? It does NOT state a timeframe/date – then the case will have to be adjourned.

 

Please....

Can someone in your organisation take some kind responsibility, and own up if the website is WRONG and also if the date cutoff has also been not been included on this.

If this is deemed to be the case, then please take note that I believe that POPLA should still honour my request add additional evidence due to your failings on displaying/advising the timescales required.

 

Please be aware that my appeal date is scheduled for this Thursday, 6th February, so your attention to the matter is greatly appreciated.

 

Kind regards,

Neil.

---

 

Just after 4:00pm, Richard Reeve returned my call, stating that someone can submit evidence right until the case is opened by the adjudicator... so basically the day BEFORE the case starts...

He is going to speak to the contact centre as they have the WRONG information, and made sure this is made clear.

 

Today, if I received an email advising that the additional evidence HAS been added to the POPLA case, ready for tomorrow, so...... fingers crossed. Lets see what happens!

 

Ill let you know the outcome when I hear back from POPLA!

 

Cheers.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

their contact centre are useless, but least you got it all in now

[123NeilyB]

Morning CAG,

Had some great news this morning from POPLA:

---

Dear Sir or Madam

123NeilyB (Appellant)

-v-

NCP Limited (Operator)

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number CPXXXXXXXX, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXYYXXX .

Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.

You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Reeve

Service Manager

----

 

Doesnt say why, but im not that bothered!

 

Hooray for me! And thank you to CAG! Donation being sent!

[ericsbrother]

glad you got the result you wanted and deserved. If NCP had carried on there would have been a strong case for you to sue them so I'm not surprised they decided to cancel their claim.

[f16]

Good for you 123NeilyB, Another success for CAGGERS