Park Direct UK left a 'ticket' for driver displaying blue badge ** APPEAL WON AT POPLA **

[cobraint]

is there any chance you can draft a message for me? I've to visit Sheffield today and I needed help in exact wordings. I really appreciate your kind effort. Mant thanks in advance

[ericsbrother]

that was the draft. just write out the above couple of sentences up to the para break (not clear) that starts No need.....

[cobraint]

that was the draft. just write out the above couple of sentences up to the para break (not clear) that starts No need.....

Many thanks ericsbrother. Upon return to home tomorrow I'll draft out a letter and post it to you for your approval. Many thanks once again for your kind help

[honeybee13]

that was the draft. just write out the above couple of sentences up to the para break (not clear) that starts No need.....

 

EB, I've put a space before 'No need', hope that's OK with you.

 

HB

[cobraint]

I reached home very late last night. Due to misfortune of falling and almost missing hitting my head on my son’s driveway last night in Sheffield I managed to drive back some 60+ miles to the comfort of my own bed.

My back took the brunt of the fall of my heavy body. Apparently the padded body warmer had soften the top half of the body in landing but my bum had only my trousers for protection, which got torn. I’m still sore and my wife says there’s bruises on my bum and my back.

@honeybee13: From the advice that you've received, do you feel able to start off your own letter? That way the forum guys can check it for you and make suggestions about how to refine it.

No, to your question: I’m not very confident of writing my own letter

Questions:

1) Should I say about my Motability issued car?

2) Correctly displaying my Blue Badge?

3) Should I quote my disable parking badge no:, etc

4) Should I send letter direct or through POPLA website?

Many many thanks honeybee13, armadillo71 and ericsbrother for your invaluable and kind help. I’ve worked out this draft word for word as per your suggestions as am not at all confident today. I hope you will guide me if it’s OK.

Thanking you in advance

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

POPLA

PO Box 1270

WARRINGTON

WA4 9RL

Dear Sir,

I am appealing on the grounds that the parking company had no authority to claim anything from me as the road is a public highway by prescription or extended use and subject to the 1988 Road Traffic Act. Any parking bays would be also covered by the RTA under either the prescription or the decision of the Court of Appeal in Dawood v Camden (2009) as they are maintained at the public's expense and there is no boundary between the two. Therefore, Park direct have no standing in this matter and cannot offer a contract to the motorists visiting that road. It then follows that there cannot be a breach of contract either.

[cobraint]

Hi guys, is their any reply to my message? I suppose you all must be busy for Christmas but I need to send this off quickly. Many thanks for reading this.

[ericsbrother]

send it, you were told it would be enough. You can expand on any part should the parking co submit any evidence and you can then rebut that using a variety of other reasons. The spaing of the lampposts on that road indicate it is a public highway with a 30mph speed limit and a scruffy sign in miniature writing isnt going to change that, especially as the sign doesnt comply with the requirements of the BPA CoP (again for later if needed)

[cobraint]

Many thanks. I've already sent it 2 days ago. Thanks again for your kind help.

[cobraint]

Happy New Year to you all. I have just received an email from POPLA. They have got this reply from Park Direct They mention: "The operator will send the evidence independently" but so far I haven't received anything from Park Direct.

 

Eaxct message onn POPLA site as received from Park Direct

 

have attached all the supporting evidence in relation to this PCN, which proves that appellant, was in breach of our parking restriction.

The appellant has based their appeal on the grounds that they had disabled badge on display and they believe that they are allowed to park on the site with their disabled badge. In relation to this I must bring to your attention that disable badge and it’s concessions are only valid on public road not private area, and this is clearly mentioned in the book provided with disabled book. Furthermore there are numerous signs throughout the site including the sign in close proximity of the vehicle to ensure all motorists are fully aware of the restriction.

All of our warning signs display 24 hours customer helpline number, had appellant called on that, they would have been advised which steps to take in order to avoid receiving PCN. The area where the vehicle was parked has strict rule of displaying a permit in order to be authorised to park and leave their vehicle unattended. By parking and leaving vehicle unattended, it is a clear breach of our parking restriction.

I have attached a copy of warning sign, which has all the parking terms and conditions mentioned in clear font. I have also attached our contract with landowner of that site, which clearly states that the area where the contravention occurred is a private area and we are clearly authorised to petrol and enforce our parking restriction for that specific site. Appellant has stated that they believe that this road is a public road and therefore they are authorised to park with their disabled badge. However, appellant has failed to provide us with any sufficient evidence to support their statement.

The onus is on the motorist to observe the warning signs when entering private property. We have reviewed our photographic evidence and can confirm that the vehicle was parked in breach of our parking regulations displayed on the signs. Please see the attached photographic evidence of the vehicle parked next to a warning sign, which clearly displayed the terms of parking. We would like to inform you that all of our photographic devices are calibrated to ensure they are precisely and accurately GMT time stamped so they are in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice.

In response to the motorist’s comments about signage in their appeal, we must bring to your attention there are signs on the entrance clearly warning drivers about the area being private property, and therefore that restrictions are in force (please find photographic evidence of this attached). The motorist does not dispute this in their appeal. According to the BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2, although entrance signs are required in most areas of enforcement, “there may be reasons why this is impractical”. The code then continues to list examples of this exemption, one being “at parking areas where general parking is not 
permitted”. Thus, as the contravention occurred on private property, where parking is restricted to residents and not the general public, there is no requirement for there to have been an entrance sign other that the one present.

We therefore submit that it is salient that vehicles using such location must be authorized to stop/wait as it is private land and drivers shall abide by warning signage on private lands and such areas are only for people who are authorised to park so. It is driver’s duty to read and adhere to the parking restriction in force for this site. As driver was in breach of our parking restriction, we uphold our decision and we believe the appeal should be cancelled

 

The onus is on driver to observe, read and adhere to the terms of parking as displayed on the warning signs.

 

What would you advice me to do now?

[ericsbrother]

They have answered the wrong points, it is not private land, it is public land and they dont have the right to make a contract.

You can rebut these points but the POPLA appeals procedure places an onus upon the operator to send you a copy of their evidence so go for it- state they havent sent you anything and that Dawood v Camden override any claim they make and it is for them to prove their claim, not for you to prove otherwise. Also, if the operator is now claiming trespass then there is no contractual obligation anyway and they would have no locus standi in a tort for damages caused by the trespass. It is avered that no dmage to the roadway was caused by the vehicle so nothing is offered to the landowner in way of remedy.

The appellant didnt comment on the signage in the same way as they did not comment upon any other point that was not on the notice issued by the operator so it cannot be said that any point raised at the time was exhaustive and the operator is being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Signage is anyway not BPA compliant regarding size and location and it is claimed that the signage is inadequate to form a contract if it was being offered and as this is admitted by the operator should the assessors find that Park direct are above the law as far as the RTA and Dawood determination goes then there can be no breach of the contractual terms for the reason stated.

[cobraint]

Many many thanks for your prompt reply. Incidentally if you remember I said I’d written to Lambeth Council, I have now received a letter from them that they have no records of the PCN thus I don’t have to pay the ticket. I presume it’s because they don’t have records of Park Direct’s ticket. This is the actual wording by POPLA on their covering email but not on the appeal page.

Your parking charge appeal against Park Direct UK Ltd.

 

Your parking charge appeal against Park Direct UK Ltd.

 

We have now received Park Direct UK Ltd’s case file. If you have not received your copy then please contact Park Direct UK Ltd directly.

 

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.

 

Any comments that you make after this time may not be considered as part of the appeal process.

 

Once this time has passed we will progress the appeal for assessment. We will let you know when this happens.

 

Yours sincerely

[cobraint]

Hi Ericsbrother, can you help me to draft a message to POPLA, please? I still haven't received anything from Park Direct.

By the way the exact message from Labeth Council is given below.

We are in receipt of your letter received on Tuesday 29 December 2015.

Unfortunately the vehicle registration number XXXXX that you have supplied does not appear to have any outstanding PCN's against it.

I would therefore advise you that due to a system error that occurred during the loading of this PCN it has not uploaded to our system, therefore there is nothing to pay.

 

please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Yours Sincerely

Correspondence Manager

Environment Services

London Borough of Lambeth

[ericsbrother]

why would you ever think Lambeth parking would have any interest in this, IT IS NOT A PARKING TICKET, it is an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.

As for your appeal, use my comments as a draft and add anything you think relevant about the Equalities Act, public land and demanding sight of Park Direct's Equalites statement as they havent supplied POPLA or you with a copy nor explained how their scheme is better than the ACOP or statutory schemes. You can demand this via a Statutory Questionnaire but the wording at the top of the SQ must be exactly right to look it up.

The main point here is they ahve no right to ask you for money as it is public land and thus covered by the RTA even if the place where you parked isnt a public highway. Uninterrupted usage enables this anyway.

[cobraint]

Many thanks for your reply ericsbrother. As I'd explained earlier that I'd only received letter from Lambeth council. I know it doesn't have bearing on this matter. Unfortunately English isn't my mother tongue (which you must have guessed it) so was unable to explain it better.

I know you have very kindly given so much of your time and effort to guide me.

As a personal favour would you be kind enough to make a draft for me which I can copy and send it to POPLA as my command of writing in English needs to improve?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[ericsbrother]

just copy the post #38 from "the POPLA appeals......." to the end and then add anything else you think relevant from earlier postings

Dont forget, if POPLA dont find in your favour it doesnt mean that the parking co is right, just that it is not within the scope of the appeals service

[ericsbrother]

you can go down the discrimination route if they want to take it further should your appeal be unsuccessful (cant see that)

[cobraint]

Hi ericsbrother,

 

Sorry for the delay in replying? I was out most of the day as my Motability car had it’s Annual Service and didn’t get home ‘till early evening.

 

I still haven’t received any messages from Park Direct

 

Do you mean #38 by yourself? If not then can you send me the correct link please?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456710-Park-Direct-UK-left-a-ticket-for-driver-displaying-blue-badge/page2

 

 

They have answered the wrong points, it is not private land, it is public land and they dont have the right to make a contract.

You can rebut these points but the POPLA appeals procedure places an onus upon the operator to send you a copy of their evidence so go for it- state they havent sent you anything and that Dawood v Camden override any claim they make and it is for them to prove their claim, not for you to prove otherwise. Also, if the operator is now claiming trespass then there is no contractual obligation anyway and they would have no locus standi in a tort for damages caused by the trespass. It is avered that no dmage to the roadway was caused by the vehicle so nothing is offered to the landowner in way of remedy.

The appellant didnt comment on the signage in the same way as they did not comment upon any other point that was not on the notice issued by the operator so it cannot be said that any point raised at the time was exhaustive and the operator is being disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Signage is anyway not BPA compliant regarding size and location and it is claimed that the signage is inadequate to form a contract if it was being offered and as this is admitted by the operator should the assessors find that Park direct are above the law as far as the RTA and Dawood determination goes then there can be no breach of the contractual terms for the reason stated.

[ericsbrother]

posr 38 in this thread, as you have picked out. Add any other point you want to raise but make sure these points are included as it is the case law that will sink any court claim.

You can add that Park Direct have failed to send you copy of their evidence and thus ask that their evidence be discounted as they have failed to follow the procedures they undertook to follow.

[cobraint]

Many thanks ericsbrother for your kind reply. I've drafted a message to post on to POPLA's site. Please let me know if anything needs to be changed.

 

POPLA had sent me a message of receiving my case file from Park Direct.

On the message from POPLA I can see that Park Direct have answered all the wrong points.

IT IS NOT PRIVATE LAND, IT IS PUBLIC LAND AND THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A CONTRACT.

The appellant didn’t comment on the signage in the same way as they did not comment upon any other point that was not on the notice issued by the operator so it cannot be said that any point raised at the time was exhaustive and the operator is being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Signage is anyway not BPA compliant regarding size and location and it is claimed that the signage is inadequate to form a contract if it was being offered and as this is admitted by the operator should the assessors find that Park direct are above the law as far as the RTA and Dawood determination goes then there can be no breach of the contractual terms for the reason stated.

As of yesterday’s post I haven’t received any messages from Park Direct have failed to follow the procedures they undertook to follow. And that Dawood v Camden override any claim they make and it is for them to prove their claim, not for me to prove otherwise.

Also, if the operator is now claiming trespass then there is no contractual obligation anyway and they would have no locus standi in a tort for damages caused by the trespass. It is avered that no damage to the roadway was caused by the vehicle so nothing is offered to the landowner in way of remedy.

[ericsbrother]

you have missed out the bit about Dawood v Camden at the beginning.

You mist cite that as that is the deciding law on this matter and if you dont say that this is the overriding reason then POPLA may decide for the parking co as just a contractual matter and think them correct when they arent. mentioning it later would diminish the importance of your argument and anyway, you want to create a paper trail that cannot be ignored.

[cobraint]

POPLA had sent me a message of receiving my case file from Park Direct.

 

On the message from POPLA I can see that Park Direct have answered all the wrong points.

 

As of yesterday’s post I haven’t received any messages from Park Direct and they have failed to follow the procedures they undertook to follow.

 

AND THAT DAWOOD V CAMDEN OVERRIDE ANY CLAIM THEY MAKE AND IT IS FOR THEM TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM, NOT FOR ME TO PROVE OTHERWISE.

 

IT IS NOT PRIVATE LAND, IT IS PUBLIC LAND AND THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A CONTRACT.

 

The appellant didn’t comment on the signage in the same way as they did not comment upon any other point that was not on the notice issued by the operator so it cannot be said that any point raised at the time was exhaustive and the operator is being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

Signage is anyway not BPA compliant regarding size and location and it is claimed that the signage is inadequate to form a contract if it was being offered and as this is admitted by the operator should the assessors find that Park direct are above the law as far as the RTA and Dawood determination goes then there can be no breach of the contractual terms for the reason stated.

 

Also, if the operator is now claiming trespass then there is no contractual obligation anyway and they would have no locus standi in a tort for damages caused by the trespass. It is avered that no damage to the roadway was caused by the vehicle so nothing is offered to the landowner in way of remedy.

[cobraint]

Many thanks ericbrother

Is above OK

[cobraint]

Apologies ericsbrother for sending you a message like this.

I had received the reply from Popla on 11.01.16. They said I've got 7 days to reply.

Would you please have a look at my post #49 and let me know if it's OK to post it as such?

I know I have received a lot of time and effort from you but I'm desperate to reply before the deadline.

Thank you

[cobraint]

I have sent this to POPLA today

 

POPLA had sent me a message of receiving my case file from Park Direct.

 

On the message from POPLA I can see that Park Direct have answered all the WRONG points.

 

As of today’s (16.01.16) post I haven’t received any messages from Park Direct and they have failed to follow the procedures they undertook to follow.

 

AND THAT DAWOOD V CAMDEN OVERRIDE ANY CLAIM THEY MAKE AND IT IS FOR THEM TO PROVE THEIR CLAIM, NOT FOR ME TO PROVE OTHERWISE.

 

IT IS NOT PRIVATE LAND, IT IS PUBLIC LAND AND THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A CONTRACT.

 

The appellant didn’t comment on the signage in the same way as they did not comment upon any other point that was not on the notice issued by the operator so it cannot be said that any point raised at the time was exhaustive and the operator is being disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

 

Signage is anyway not BPA compliant regarding size and location and it is claimed that the signage is inadequate to form a contract if it was being offered and as this is admitted by the operator should the assessors find that Park direct are above the law as far as the RTA and Dawood determination goes then there can be no breach of the contractual terms for the reason stated.

 

Also, if the operator is now claiming trespass then there is no contractual obligation anyway and they would have no locus standi in a tort for damages caused by the trespass. It is avered that no damage to the roadway was caused by the vehicle so nothing is offered to the landowner in way of remedy.

[ericsbrother]

that will do fine. I would bet that they withdraw rather than lose an income stream because if POPLA decide it is a public road as determined then they face criminal charges or a group action for a civil wrong.