PPS PCN - Great Weatern Hotel Swindon - ticket incorrectly displayed

[corsairrunner]

https://db.tt/M9j0vLTd

https://db.tt/JwkLhhWH

https://db.tt/Dl0GqaX9

 

Pictures of signage in the parking area, please advise.

[ericsbrother]

Post up piccies as PDF's, links to upoload doesnt work. Also indicate which sign is where as the first image refers to agreeing to a contractual charge for breaching the contract.... it is either a contract or a breach of contract, not both so they will lose a court claim but that might not win you a POPLA appeal so go for the facts of paid prescribed fee so claim for company is a penalty charge and then add the signage saying both a contract and breach of contract being polar opposites so confusing wording makes it impossible to consider how a contract is being formed or not. Copy of first image best describes the confusing signage.

[Seven Towers]

Don't worry too much about the signs, just go for the standard appeal points, here is a winning PPS POPLA appeal, albeit a bit wordy. Read through it, adapt the bits that don't apply to you and submit as your appeal, if you do so it will be a guaranteed slam dunk win. Attach to your appeal as a PDF/Word document, the POPLA text box has a 1000 charater limit.

 

 

 

Dear POPLA,

verification code 686xxxxxxx

My appeal as registered keeper of the vehicle, comprises these points:

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.

 

3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

 

4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff.

These points are explained below:

 

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards.

To quote Assessor Chris Adamson, from a very similar POPLA decision v PPS which shows their true intentions behind their charges, earlier in 2014:

''... ‘No valid ticket or permit displayed’... The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. In this case, I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking. The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss. I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made.Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits.

 

...It seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.'' Chris Adamson, Assessor (Feb 2014).

I have found another recent POPLA case v PPS (at the same car park as my charge relates to, same contravention) which gives the game away about PPS' true intentions in advance. This was POPLA decision reference 6860024043 in February 2014, when Assessor Nozir Uddin decided to allow the appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This was because PPS' intentions prior to parking charges being issued at that site, were stated to be that the charge was 'a sum in the nature of a contractual fee rather than a sum for the breach of it'. And yet the signage and rejection letter gave away the fact it was really a matter of breach of contract which required a GPEOL. In that case, PPS tried to argue both scenarios - which cannot be allowed, they cannot say it was either one or the other depending upon which suits. So in order to show what PPS' real intentions were for their charges, prior to my vehicle being parked at this site, here are some excerpts from PPS' statement regarding POPLA case 6860024043:

''The amount sought as a PCN is a term of the contract rather than a sum for the breach of it. This contractual agreement is clearly worded on our warning signage.''

''With regards to the claim that there has been no loss suffered by the company, we consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge and as part of a contractual agreement. ''

 

So PPS' stated intentions earlier this year were that the charges making up PCNs of £100 issued at Didcot Station car park, were designed to be a contractual fee; a sum in the nature of a parking charge. The blue sign lists certain fees under the heading 'tariff' and £100 is not one of them. However, I have no idea from the Notice to Keeper how much of the tariff remained unpaid (if at all). This small sum, or a percentage of it, would be the only 'contractual sum' in the alleged contract which can represent consideration. A PCN for £100 is not recoverable in this instance, however PPS try to slant the calculations.

The point I am making is that the suggestion that their charges are based on any loss is untrue because this was not their stated intention in advance. But recently PPS have decided to try their luck by pretending that their intention all along was to charge for loss. Even worse, this approach fooled POPLA on at least two occasions until robust appeals exposing the truth achieved a more measured view, as in POPLA code 6861754004 (PPS again) where Assessor Ricky Powell noticed the heavily duplicated and frankly ridiculous staffing costs:

 

''I am not satisfied that the pre-estimate of loss supplied by the Operator reflects the charge issued. I find that the ‘appeal writing’ loss asserted is duplicated in two heads of loss. The ‘Appeals staff’ appeals writing costs are included in the sum for £9.51. However, there are further appeal writing costs included in the ‘Management’ costs, which total £71.65. It has not been explained how the individual heads of loss included under the heading ‘Management’ are calculated. It is also impossible to determine what contribution the appeal writing costs contribute to the total of £71.65. Therefore, I cannot find that the total costs for ‘Management’ are substantiated and so must disregard them from the total genuine pre-estimate of loss. The total pre-estimate after subtracting the above £71.65 is £31.18. I find that this does not substantially amount to the issued £100 charge and that it does not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss caused by the Appellant’s breach. Therefore, I find that the parking charge is not enforceable in this case. '' (Ricky Powell, Assessor, August 2014).

It seems to me that PPS have tried to mislead POPLA to gain pecuniary advantage against motorists who have all paid the tariff and can prove it. This is unsupportable and unprofessional, as is the massaged 'loss statement' that they now suddenly use to try to magically meet the sum of the PCN. In simple terms:

 

- PPS must think I was born yesterday if they think I believe that they 'thought there was an initial loss' when yet another of PPS' extra-flimsy tickets slipped.

- It beggars belief that managers and directors would spend hours on each POPLA case. There are too many layers of repeated checks by highly paid staff to be credible.

- PPS use a template POPLA 'GPEOL' summary & response so it is not individually written nor even applicable to my own case at all.

- staff/NI are all tax-deductible costs of running a business and do not directly flow from one alleged breach in a car park where there was no initial loss.

- PPS staff do not just handle appeals, their work includes dealing with clients/permits, and Directors have supervisory/staffing/new business and Management duties so I am not liable to pay their wages nor to line the pockets of PPS owner with yet more profits. The sum of £71.65 is laughable in their GPEOL statement.

- POPLA related 'work' cannot apply to each PCN as a 'genuine pre-estimate', because only 1% or 2% of cases ever get to POPLA stage.

- Since the vast majority will never to go to appeal, let alone as far as POPLA, this is comparable to cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs. In those cases, POPLA routinely dismiss those heads on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable'. The same applies to 'POPLA costs'.

- If I had not appealed at all, instead paying between day 14 and day 28 then the full cost of the PCN would have applied. Why? How does PPS' GPEOL explain that?

- The other 'business costs' (including a DVLA fee that in fact costs £2.50 and stationery/postage) cannot be added since this does not flow from all PCNs.

 

Where an Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach and a large percentage of the amount comes from staff costs, they must be able to justify those heads as relating to every typical PCN (whether appealed or not). In the case of PPS they include several layers of checks on the work of other staff members - I would contend this is an unnecessary amount of checks and that the Operator has not shown that the items referred to are substantially linked to the loss incurred by every breach.

 

Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."

 

As PPS have since changed their GPEOL calculations from the version presented to POPLA Assessors just a few months ago, then I contend that the calculation (even if it were a more credible effort than this one) must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. As such, the latest effort by PPS is disingenuous and is merely an over-inflated and duplicated new 'calculation of alleged actual loss, made afterwards'. It is not enforceable according to the words of Mr Greenslade.

 

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.

The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is not properly given under the POFA 2012. The NTK does not tell me as keeper what the contravention was and how much of the tariff allegedly remains unpaid for what length of parking period. In this car park there are multiple possibilities and the NTK fails to confirm me of the position (which cannot be 'either/or'). So, I am left to wonder, are PPS saying that the driver failed to pay any tariff, or paid a partial tariff/overstayed, or paid with RingGo but suffered a failure of that system, or perhaps input the car registration wrongly, or paid in full but the P&D ticket was not seen on display? The NTK fails to tell me.

 

Further non-compliance with the POFA is the omission of the following wording as found in paragraph 8 of schedule 4:

 

'‘(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph © or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’

(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available''

 

In addition, the Notice contains misleading wording which not only states a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist but also breaches the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14: 'Misrepresentation of authority':

 

14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority.'

 

In bold at the top of the Notice is the underlined word 'Important' and therein follows this misleading imaginary deadline and threat:

 

'Failure to pay the parking charge within 14 days of receiving it, without reasonable excuse, could lead to legal proceedings being issued.'

 

This impersonates Police wording and is patently not true. There is no 14 day deadline at all and a person does not need 'reasonable excuse' not to pay or appeal a private parking charge.

 

This is compounded by another large font paragraph in bold: 'Only payment in full will prevent us from taking further action'. It is utterly misleading and untrue that the keeper's ONLY option is to pay in full because of course there is the option to appeal. POPLA will notice that the NTK completely omits any details (even on the back) about how to appeal and the keeper's right to POPLA. There is nothing about it at all, so I hope that POPLA may be minded to report this serious omission to the BPA Ltd.

 

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has previously confirmed that a NTK is 'fundamental to establishing keeper liability' and if the Notice is not properly given it is therefore a nullity. It is a strict requirement of POFA that all statutory conditions must be met and stated wording included, in order for keeper liability to be established. This Notice to Keeper was not properly 'given'.

 

3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

I require PPS to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. I believe PPS have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I believe they are merely a commercial agent for the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing. A PPS 'witness statement' would not refute this appeal point, since the following issues would be hidden:

- whether the contract allows for a contractual fee model

- whether this contravention is actually stated in the contract

- whether PPS are an agent and when the contract expires/renews

- the site boundary and scope of the operation

- what the charges are for each alleged contravention

- any 'revenue sharing' which must be reflected in the calculations

 

To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either! If a witness statement is produced then I will be rebutting it.

4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff.

This car park has various signage designs, including a dark blue one which is difficult to read at all when driving, and a black and white one which would only be readable if the font size was larger. The only tariff mentioned is small sum between £1 and £6 as far as I can see - there is no £100 tariff. The driver cannot have entered into any contract to pay the amount of the PCN as a tariff. Where it is mentioned, the £100 is in such small font that the onerous term of the £100 PCN is not sufficiently explicit to form a contract that a driver must have seen when paying.

 

This concludes my appeal.

[corsairrunner]

I'm finding it hard not to get lost in the amount lingo and legal points in this document, could anyone briefly highlight given the subject of the thread, which of these sections I should remove/edit to cater to my scenario, also the signage I've linked is (I would assume by the content in the appeal) different to that of the parking signage this chap was dealing with.

[themagician]

Don't worry too much about the signs, just go for the standard appeal points, here is a winning PPS POPLA appeal, albeit a bit wordy. Read through it, adapt the bits that don't apply to you and submit as your appeal, if you do so it will be a guaranteed slam dunk win. Attach to your appeal as a PDF/Word document, the POPLA text box has a 1000 charater limit.

 

 

 

Dear POPLA,

verification code 686xxxxxxx

My appeal as registered keeper of the vehicle, comprises these points:

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards.

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.

 

3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

 

4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff.

These points are explained below:

 

1. The intention of PPS' charge was not based on any advance regard to genuine pre-estimate of loss, rather they intended it to be a tariff. They have massaged their POPLA evidence now to manufacture a 'loss' statement which duplicates layers of staff time, includes double counting and is not applicable to 98% of PCNs. It is at best, a crude calculation of the actual loss suffered, made afterwards.

To quote Assessor Chris Adamson, from a very similar POPLA decision v PPS which shows their true intentions behind their charges, earlier in 2014:

''... ‘No valid ticket or permit displayed’... The Operator submits that the charge is not a sum sought as damages, rather it is ‘an excess charge not a breach or a sum for damages’. Accordingly the Operator submits that it need not reflect the loss caused by the breach. In this case, I am not minded to accept this submission. The charge must either be one for damages as submitted by the Appellant, or consideration - the price paid for parking. The Operator has submitted in the alternative that the sum, ‘if considered genuine pre-estimation of losses’ is based on a number heading related to direct loss. I do not accept this submission. Whether or not the charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss is to be ascertained by an objective assessment of the intentions of the parties at the time the contract was made.Accordingly, the Operator must be able to say what its intentions actually were, and cannot rely on the charge being either a tariff, or a charge for damages, depending on which suits.

 

...It seems clear from the Operator evidence that, whilst its intentions were actually to charge a tariff, the signage displayed did not indicate this. It has not demonstrated that anything was being offered in return. Instead the wording of the sign indicates damages, although it does not appear that the Operator’s intentions when setting the level of the charge were to compensate for the loss estimated. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.'' Chris Adamson, Assessor (Feb 2014).

I have found another recent POPLA case v PPS (at the same car park as my charge relates to, same contravention) which gives the game away about PPS' true intentions in advance. This was POPLA decision reference 6860024043 in February 2014, when Assessor Nozir Uddin decided to allow the appeal on the basis that the Operator has failed to prove that the parking charge amount was a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This was because PPS' intentions prior to parking charges being issued at that site, were stated to be that the charge was 'a sum in the nature of a contractual fee rather than a sum for the breach of it'. And yet the signage and rejection letter gave away the fact it was really a matter of breach of contract which required a GPEOL. In that case, PPS tried to argue both scenarios - which cannot be allowed, they cannot say it was either one or the other depending upon which suits. So in order to show what PPS' real intentions were for their charges, prior to my vehicle being parked at this site, here are some excerpts from PPS' statement regarding POPLA case 6860024043:

''The amount sought as a PCN is a term of the contract rather than a sum for the breach of it. This contractual agreement is clearly worded on our warning signage.''

''With regards to the claim that there has been no loss suffered by the company, we consider the amount on the PCN as a reasonable charge and as part of a contractual agreement. ''

 

So PPS' stated intentions earlier this year were that the charges making up PCNs of £100 issued at Didcot Station car park, were designed to be a contractual fee; a sum in the nature of a parking charge. The blue sign lists certain fees under the heading 'tariff' and £100 is not one of them. However, I have no idea from the Notice to Keeper how much of the tariff remained unpaid (if at all). This small sum, or a percentage of it, would be the only 'contractual sum' in the alleged contract which can represent consideration. A PCN for £100 is not recoverable in this instance, however PPS try to slant the calculations.

The point I am making is that the suggestion that their charges are based on any loss is untrue because this was not their stated intention in advance. But recently PPS have decided to try their luck by pretending that their intention all along was to charge for loss. Even worse, this approach fooled POPLA on at least two occasions until robust appeals exposing the truth achieved a more measured view, as in POPLA code 6861754004 (PPS again) where Assessor Ricky Powell noticed the heavily duplicated and frankly ridiculous staffing costs:

 

''I am not satisfied that the pre-estimate of loss supplied by the Operator reflects the charge issued. I find that the ‘appeal writing’ loss asserted is duplicated in two heads of loss. The ‘Appeals staff’ appeals writing costs are included in the sum for £9.51. However, there are further appeal writing costs included in the ‘Management’ costs, which total £71.65. It has not been explained how the individual heads of loss included under the heading ‘Management’ are calculated. It is also impossible to determine what contribution the appeal writing costs contribute to the total of £71.65. Therefore, I cannot find that the total costs for ‘Management’ are substantiated and so must disregard them from the total genuine pre-estimate of loss. The total pre-estimate after subtracting the above £71.65 is £31.18. I find that this does not substantially amount to the issued £100 charge and that it does not constitute a genuine pre-estimate of the Operator’s loss caused by the Appellant’s breach. Therefore, I find that the parking charge is not enforceable in this case. '' (Ricky Powell, Assessor, August 2014).

It seems to me that PPS have tried to mislead POPLA to gain pecuniary advantage against motorists who have all paid the tariff and can prove it. This is unsupportable and unprofessional, as is the massaged 'loss statement' that they now suddenly use to try to magically meet the sum of the PCN. In simple terms:

 

- PPS must think I was born yesterday if they think I believe that they 'thought there was an initial loss' when yet another of PPS' extra-flimsy tickets slipped.

- It beggars belief that managers and directors would spend hours on each POPLA case. There are too many layers of repeated checks by highly paid staff to be credible.

- PPS use a template POPLA 'GPEOL' summary & response so it is not individually written nor even applicable to my own case at all.

- staff/NI are all tax-deductible costs of running a business and do not directly flow from one alleged breach in a car park where there was no initial loss.

- PPS staff do not just handle appeals, their work includes dealing with clients/permits, and Directors have supervisory/staffing/new business and Management duties so I am not liable to pay their wages nor to line the pockets of PPS owner with yet more profits. The sum of £71.65 is laughable in their GPEOL statement.

- POPLA related 'work' cannot apply to each PCN as a 'genuine pre-estimate', because only 1% or 2% of cases ever get to POPLA stage.

- Since the vast majority will never to go to appeal, let alone as far as POPLA, this is comparable to cases where Operators add 'debt collection' costs. In those cases, POPLA routinely dismiss those heads on the basis that 'cases may never get to debt collection stage so this is not applicable'. The same applies to 'POPLA costs'.

- If I had not appealed at all, instead paying between day 14 and day 28 then the full cost of the PCN would have applied. Why? How does PPS' GPEOL explain that?

- The other 'business costs' (including a DVLA fee that in fact costs £2.50 and stationery/postage) cannot be added since this does not flow from all PCNs.

 

Where an Operator has submitted a breakdown of the losses incurred as a result of the breach and a large percentage of the amount comes from staff costs, they must be able to justify those heads as relating to every typical PCN (whether appealed or not). In the case of PPS they include several layers of checks on the work of other staff members - I would contend this is an unnecessary amount of checks and that the Operator has not shown that the items referred to are substantially linked to the loss incurred by every breach.

 

Indeed, in the 2014 Annual Report the Lead Adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, stated, “However, genuine pre-estimate of loss means just that. It is an estimate of the loss which might reasonably be suffered, made before the breach occurred, rather than a calculation of the actual loss suffered made afterwards."

 

As PPS have since changed their GPEOL calculations from the version presented to POPLA Assessors just a few months ago, then I contend that the calculation (even if it were a more credible effort than this one) must fail as it is not a genuine PRE-estimate. In fact is a 'post-estimate' after the event, of figures designed to match the charge. As such, the latest effort by PPS is disingenuous and is merely an over-inflated and duplicated new 'calculation of alleged actual loss, made afterwards'. It is not enforceable according to the words of Mr Greenslade.

 

2. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so there is no keeper liability established.

The document which purports to be a Notice to Keeper is not properly given under the POFA 2012. The NTK does not tell me as keeper what the contravention was and how much of the tariff allegedly remains unpaid for what length of parking period. In this car park there are multiple possibilities and the NTK fails to confirm me of the position (which cannot be 'either/or'). So, I am left to wonder, are PPS saying that the driver failed to pay any tariff, or paid a partial tariff/overstayed, or paid with RingGo but suffered a failure of that system, or perhaps input the car registration wrongly, or paid in full but the P&D ticket was not seen on display? The NTK fails to tell me.

 

Further non-compliance with the POFA is the omission of the following wording as found in paragraph 8 of schedule 4:

 

'‘(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph © or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver...the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;’

(g) inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available''

 

In addition, the Notice contains misleading wording which not only states a level of authority and deadlines that do not exist but also breaches the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 14: 'Misrepresentation of authority':

 

14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority.'

 

In bold at the top of the Notice is the underlined word 'Important' and therein follows this misleading imaginary deadline and threat:

 

'Failure to pay the parking charge within 14 days of receiving it, without reasonable excuse, could lead to legal proceedings being issued.'

 

This impersonates Police wording and is patently not true. There is no 14 day deadline at all and a person does not need 'reasonable excuse' not to pay or appeal a private parking charge.

 

This is compounded by another large font paragraph in bold: 'Only payment in full will prevent us from taking further action'. It is utterly misleading and untrue that the keeper's ONLY option is to pay in full because of course there is the option to appeal. POPLA will notice that the NTK completely omits any details (even on the back) about how to appeal and the keeper's right to POPLA. There is nothing about it at all, so I hope that POPLA may be minded to report this serious omission to the BPA Ltd.

 

POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has previously confirmed that a NTK is 'fundamental to establishing keeper liability' and if the Notice is not properly given it is therefore a nullity. It is a strict requirement of POFA that all statutory conditions must be met and stated wording included, in order for keeper liability to be established. This Notice to Keeper was not properly 'given'.

 

3. The Operator has no standing, legal title nor authority from the landowner, to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

I require PPS to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. I believe PPS have no locus standi to pursue the matter in the courts nor to form contracts with drivers in their own right. I believe they are merely a commercial agent for the true principal and have a bare licence to 'issue tickets' which gives them no standing. A PPS 'witness statement' would not refute this appeal point, since the following issues would be hidden:

- whether the contract allows for a contractual fee model

- whether this contravention is actually stated in the contract

- whether PPS are an agent and when the contract expires/renews

- the site boundary and scope of the operation

- what the charges are for each alleged contravention

- any 'revenue sharing' which must be reflected in the calculations

 

To be clear, I require the contract itself, unredacted, because I am NOT querying the mere right to 'issue tickets' - which anyone could do, even the car park cleaning contractors and obviously they would not have any locus standi either! If a witness statement is produced then I will be rebutting it.

4. The signage terms are unclear, with small font. There are several different signs and none provide for £100 as a tariff.

This car park has various signage designs, including a dark blue one which is difficult to read at all when driving, and a black and white one which would only be readable if the font size was larger. The only tariff mentioned is small sum between £1 and £6 as far as I can see - there is no £100 tariff. The driver cannot have entered into any contract to pay the amount of the PCN as a tariff. Where it is mentioned, the £100 is in such small font that the onerous term of the £100 PCN is not sufficiently explicit to form a contract that a driver must have seen when paying.

 

This concludes my appeal.

WOW! what ever happened to plain old GPEOL ??.

[Seven Towers]

Don't worry about understanding all of the legal points, you can't be expected to understand all of the legal jargon, BUT just copy and paste for a slam dunk win at POPLA, tweak the last paragraph if it doesn't conform with your situation, but make sure that you state that signage is non-compliant. It is for PPS to prove that their signage is compliant, the onus is on them, not you.

 

In any case, you will win on the first point, GPEOL. The reason why this section is so long is that one POPLA assessor actually bought PPS' nonsense about GPEOL and dismissed the appeal, it took some decisive action from forum regulars to get that over-ruled. We don't want to risk your appeal failing,

 

So, just copy, paste and make the tweaks minimal, and you WILL WIN!

[corsairrunner]

Thanks so much for your help! I'll submit the appeal later today and let you know what they come back with!

[Seven Towers]

WOW! what ever happened to plain old GPEOL ??.

 

This happened:

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5018879&highlight=pps+popla

 

We don't want to risk another farcical POPLA decision where they accept PPS' fairy tale about their supposed GPEOL.

[corsairrunner]

Having read through the appeal, it appears only the section about the signs stating there could be potential police action and the font size of the £100 tariff has changed on their signage so I will edit those sections accordingly. Given that the crux of this argument seems to depend on the GEPOL hopefully it won't change much. Just for my understanding can you confirm what the "NTK" is in this context?

[Seven Towers]

Notice to Keeper - the letter they send through post after the DVA have sold them your address details

 

All Acronyms explained in post 2 here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

[corsairrunner]

I haven't yet received the NTK, should I just enter this part in to my appeal incase the NTK doesn't include this information? Concerned that if they've changed their NTK they may see the appeal I'm submitting as inaccurate and that may go against me?

[Seven Towers]

Sorry, I missed that you had appealed from the windscreen ticket (saving then £2.50 in in DVA fees) and you have outed yourself as the driver, therefore POFA does not come into it.

 

If you wish to remove this point and the explanation paragraph then you can do so.

 

However it it was me I'd leave it in there.

 

Each appeal point that you make stands in its own right and has no impact on any of the other points.

You only need to win on one point, they need to win on everything, leaving it in there will do no harm whatsoever.

 

If you do remove a point, make sure to re-number the others as appropriate, and remember to put your own POPLA reference at the top.

[corsairrunner]

Hi guys,

 

Just to give you an update, I've submitted my appeal, as recommended in the previous post I didn't bother changing anything in relation to the content of the appeal other than changing the POPLA code obviously!

 

I'll come back to you with any updates I receive. Hopefully this results in a win! If not I'll be back for more advice.

 

Thank you for your help up until this point!

[corsairrunner]

Hi guys,

 

I've had a summary of evidence from POPLA, including the GPEOL from PPS etc, can someone have a quick scan of this just to see if there's anywhere easy to trip them up?

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fgxbvk67pjfgcr9/Case%20Summary.pdf?dl=0

[ericsbrother]

basically all of their losses they are claiming are as a result of preparing their evidence to POPLA and none of that is a loss caused by the parking event. It is a conseqwuence of their own action and not yours.

They would need to show that they have hired staff just to deal with this matter if they want to claim these costs. If they hadnt decided to contest your appeal none of the costs would have occurred and they are a result of obeying the law and not your parking.

Their only loss is the parking fee and possibly the cost of sending out their demand. You would need to see the contract between them and the landowner to see if that is their loss or the landlord's. You demanded to see that contract and they havent made it available so you cannot admit or deny any breach has occurred. They havent answered the point about the notice to you being non-compliant with the PoFA. 2012

[corsairrunner]

Do I need to highlight that to POPLA or can I have faith that POPLA will recognise that flaw when they come to reviewing the appeal?

[ericsbrother]

highlight it in case POPLA decide to believe the twaddle these people are now inventing to make their claim look credible. Generally POPLA arent daft but it is for you to make a case.

[corsairrunner]

How would you recommend I present this to them? Do I need to create a word document to that effect and e-mail it to POPLA? Any help with how to present the point would be much appreciated.

[Seven Towers]

Hi,

Sorry, I have been away for most of the last month and am just catching up now, however Eric's brother is offering good advice, as always.

 

Yes, put the point in a word doc and email to POPLA, asking them to add it to your case.

 

Looking forward to hearing the outcome.

[corsairrunner]

Hi guys,

 

Just wanted to run this post past you guys before I submit it to POPLA. Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

Ref appeal xxxxcc

 

Please add this evidence to my case file, it refers to PPS’s evidence forwarded to me on 27/02/2015

 

I would argue that the majority (if not, all) of their GPEOL costs are as a result of preparing evidence for POPLA, which is a consequence of their own actions, opposed to any loss in relation to the actual parking event itself which is ultimately what their £60.00/£100.00 charge should reflect, how could PPS present me with a £100.00 charge when it isn't at all accurate UNLESS it goes to appeal, only when it goes to appeal do PPS fabricate this £100.00 GPEOL.

 

This leads me to believe PPS’s only legitimate loss in this situation would be the costs of the operative putting the ticket on my vehicle as the parking ticket was in fact paid and all of their loss is entirely dependent on the case going to appeal, if it didn’t go to appeal, they can never substantiate that the £100.00 PCN is remotely accurate to the loss they incur.

 

Finally I would like to point out that I requested the actual contract from PPS to determine whether the supposed “loss” is theirs or the land owners, they refused to provide that contract and instead provided me with a witness statement that will not suffice due to the points listed in my appeal.

 

It is obvious to me, having done some research, that PPS are guilty of constantly messaging their figures in relation to POPLA appeals, they’re always finding weird and wonderful ways of attaching costs to their staff, previously they used directors quality checking which is obviously codswallop, that got refused in appeal, now PPS have amalgamated it in to their “POPLA Manager” and admin costs. The fact is, their GPEOL is unrealistic and hinges entirely on the PCN going to POPLA appeal, given that roughly 2% of PCN’s ever make it to appeal, I find this GPEOL and the £100 PCN farcical.

Edited March 2, 2015 by corsairrunner

[ericsbrother]

before you post it off, have a look at the parking prankster's blog and you will see a PEOL from JAS parking solutions. What I would do is send in both as a comparison as they both have similar real costs and value of claims but seem to find different amounts to justify the £2.50 they spent finding the keeper's address. Also bear in mind that JAS have changed what each portion of cost is as they lost the lase on ethey tried it on with.

£29 to poke the keyboard of theor computer? That is an establishment cost as they must have the systemin place before anything else can happen or they wont be able to issue anything to the motorist. Ifthen POPLA for some reason agree with the parking co in your case you can appeal on the grounds of inconsistemncy and how damaging that will be in the event of a court claim.

[corsairrunner]

Please see the document I've prepared to send to POPLA, hopefully this should be sufficient, I know I've repeated points a number of times but I really wanted to drill the point.

 

-Link removed briefly until edit-

 

Thank you so much for your help up until this point ericsbrother!

Edited March 2, 2015 by corsairrunner

[DragonFly1967]

I'd remove the part about their costs including the cost of the operative to affix the NTD to your vehicle. If he's there, he's there regardless of whether or not you parked. So his wage (the cost to the PPC) is immaterial to your appeal.

 

I'm still reading the letter and I'll add to this if necessary

 

 

Also, you need to remove your POPLA code from the letter as displayed here. You never know who might be looking at it, and you don't want to give the PPC any prior knowledge of what you're going to submit.

 

 

In paragraph 5, "messaging" should be massaging.

 

 

You'd be wise to ALLEGE that the £100 GPEOL is a fabrication, rather than stating it as fact. We all know it's made up, but you have to play the legal game and unless you have proof, you can only allege that they're plucked from thin air.

 

In paragraph 6. " there July " should be their July

 

Final paragraph... " really under go quality control " should perhaps be, really undertake quality control.

[corsairrunner]

Thanks, had to write this up a bit quick on lunch so didn't have a chance to proof read, will make necessary ammendments later, I'll remove the link for now as I don't have the ability to edit the doc at this time

[Beesnees]

Picking up some general points:

1. Keep an eye on your sentence structure and associated comprehensibility. Some of your sentences are too long and loose sense as a result. Keep them short and to the point.

2. A lot of your content is polemic/argumentation. Try to be more matter-of-fact, stick to points of law, etc. Avoid emotional arguments or appeals.

3. Watch your spelling, grammar, etc.