DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 26057--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 14, 2024, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you present your case strongly, POPLA aren't as bad as
they're sometimes made out. I think the takeaway is to not panic
if they reject your appeal.
Anecdotally, POPLA are sometimes reluctant to rule on signage,
as it forces the parking company to change it, but don't be
discouraged.
#Post#: 26058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: Swahmad
Date: June 14, 2024, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Unless others have a different point of view, I'd say that you
may as well try your luck with POPLA and let's see how they make
their assessment.
>
> Don't be disheartened by the discussion about the merits or
otherwise of POPLA. At least they have much higher successful
appeal rate than the IAS which is around 4%-5%.
>
> An unsuccessful appeal by POPLA has no bearing on any future
claim, should it come to that. In fact, it is often preferred to
have a judge decide whether you owe a debt because they are the
only truly independent arbiter.
>
> If the appeal is not successful at POPLA, it would be
interesting to see how PE deal with this. If they decide to use
a third party debt collector to send useless letters, it means
that they have little to no faith that they would win in court.
You can guarantee that if they use DCB Legal to file a claim on
their behalf, you won't be paying a penny. I won't go into all
the detail of why right now except to say that is a known modus
operandi for any claim issued by DCB Legal that is defended
using the template defence is discontinued before they have to
pay the hearing fee.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks. Hopefully doesn't go any further. Caused a lot of stress
and hassle!
#Post#: 26059--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: Swahmad
Date: June 14, 2024, 12:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> If you present your case strongly, POPLA aren't as bad as
they're sometimes made out. I think the takeaway is to not panic
if they reject your appeal.
>
> Anecdotally, POPLA are sometimes reluctant to rule on signage,
as it forces the parking company to change it, but don't be
discouraged.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks. Thoughts on my revised appeal for popla?
#Post#: 26153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 15, 2024, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would amend, my suggestion being as follows:
The signage at the site (a copy of which is attached) states
that tariffs only* apply between 5pm-8am Monday-Friday, & all
day Saturday and Sunday.
If parking is offered to the general public at all hours and on
all days, then there is no ambiguity about these terms which can
only be interpreted as meaning that, as regards whether parking
is subject to payment of a tariff, parking is free of charge
between 5pm and 8am Monday to Friday; from 5pm to midnight on
Fridays; and all hours Saturday and Sunday.
The driver in this case parked on a Friday at 9.05am and left at
1.27pm the same day.
Payment for parking was not required, it therefore follows that
this limb of the creditor's allegation is without merit.
The second limb of the creditor's allegation is that the vehicle
'remained at the car park for longer than permitted'. However,
the full terms have been reproduced above (and can be seen in
the attached photo) and the assessor will notice that the
landowner has not applied any maximum parking period on
motorists. It therefore follows that this limb of the creditor's
allegation must also fail.
*- the word only doesn't appear. Just stick with the wording at
this stage, interpretations can follow.
#Post#: 26226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 16, 2024, 3:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Chsnge 'free of charge' to 'chargeable' :)
#Post#: 26364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: Swahmad
Date: June 16, 2024, 6:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
2nd draft
Dear Sirs,
I am appealing this parking charge notice. I am appealing on the
grounds that the driver did not breach any of the terms of
parking as advertised by the signage on the site.
ParkingEye issued a parking charge for "either not purchasing
the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for
longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in the signage".
The driver did not do either of these things.
The signage at the site (a copy of which is attached) states
that tariffs apply between 5pm-8am Monday-Friday, & all day
Saturday and Sunday.
If parking is offered to the general public at all hours and on
all days, then there is no ambiguity about these terms which can
only be interpreted as meaning that, as regards whether parking
is subject to payment of a tariff, parking is chargeable between
5pm and 8am Monday to Friday; from 5pm to midnight on Fridays;
and all hours Saturday and Sunday.
The driver in this case parked on a Friday at 9.05am and left at
1.27pm the same day.
Payment for parking was not required, it therefore follows that
this limb of the creditor's allegation is without merit.
The second limb of the creditor's allegation is that the vehicle
'remained at the car park for longer than permitted'. However,
the full terms have been reproduced above (and can be seen in
the attached photo) and the assessor will notice that the
landowner has not applied any maximum parking period on
motorists. It therefore follows that this limb of the creditor's
allegation must also fail.
It is not implied by the signage that parking outside the hours
of 5pm-8am for the general public is not permitted. If
parkingeye had meant for this, then it should be clearly stated.
If ParkingEye wish to argue that this is the intended
interpretation of the signage, then that term is at best
ambiguous, and as such, Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act
(2015) should apply:
"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could
have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to
the consumer is to prevail."
The meaning that is most favourable to the consumer here is the
one that means parking outside of the times stated is allowed
without the payment of a tariff, and thus no breach has
occurred.
As the driver did not fail to purchase the appropriate parking
time (as no tariff was due), nor did they remain at the car park
for longer than permitted, the charge is not owed and the appeal
should be upheld.
#Post#: 26793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: Swahmad
Date: June 19, 2024, 4:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Opinions on my 2md draft?
#Post#: 26798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 19, 2024, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the content looks alright. I would however be tempted to
amend the formatting slightly, just for ease of reading (even
though it's a short appeal by POPLA standards). Take a look at
this example: Euro Car Parks Ltd POPLA appeal
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9xdjt9a6mw7hvp0h5a3yn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?rlkey=a0y6xxd5a5z6kpbzst33tuqwi&e=1&dl=0<br
/>- ignore the actual appeal points raised, but note the format.
A
brief introductory paragraph and a numbered list of the grounds
on which the appeal is based, followed by the details of each
point. It might seem unecessary if you're only making 3 key
points, but makes clear that they are separate points and must
all be considered.
#Post#: 26813--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: Swahmad
Date: June 19, 2024, 5:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I think the content looks alright. I would however be tempted
to amend the formatting slightly, just for ease of reading (even
though it's a short appeal by POPLA standards). Take a look at
this example: Euro Car Parks Ltd POPLA appeal
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9xdjt9a6mw7hvp0h5a3yn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?rlkey=a0y6xxd5a5z6kpbzst33tuqwi&e=1&dl=0<br
/>- ignore the actual appeal points raised, but note the format.
A
brief introductory paragraph and a numbered list of the grounds
on which the appeal is based, followed by the details of each
point. It might seem unecessary if you're only making 3 key
points, but makes clear that they are separate points and must
all be considered.
>
--- End Quote ---
Agree with what you're saying
Only a small tweak but if nothing else, will be submitting this
3rd draft
Dear Sirs,
I am appealing this parking charge notice. I am appealing on the
grounds that the driver did not breach any of the terms of
parking as advertised by the signage on the site.
ParkingEye issued a parking charge for "either not purchasing
the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for
longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in the signage".
The driver did not do either of these things.
The signage at the site (a copy of which is attached) states
that tariffs only apply between 5pm-8am Monday-Friday, & all day
Saturday and Sunday.
If parking is offered to the general public at all hours and on
all days, then there is no ambiguity about these terms which can
only be interpreted as meaning that, as regards whether parking
is subject to payment of a tariff, parking is chargeable between
5pm and 8am Monday to Friday; from 5pm to midnight on Fridays;
and all hours Saturday and Sunday.
The driver in this case parked on a Friday at 9.05am and left at
1.27pm the same day. Therefore, for the following three reasons,
the parking charge did not apply:
1. Payment for parking was not required, it therefore follows
that this limb of the creditor's allegation is without merit.
2. The second limb of the creditor's allegation is that the
vehicle 'remained at the car park for longer than permitted'.
However, the full terms have been reproduced above (and can be
seen in the attached photo) and the assessor will notice that
the landowner has not applied any maximum parking period on
motorists. It therefore follows that this limb of the creditor's
allegation must also fail.
3. It is not implied by the signage that parking outside the
hours of 5pm-8am for the general public is not permitted. If
parkingeye had meant for this, then it should be clearly stated.
If ParkingEye wish to argue that this is the intended
interpretation of the signage, then that term is at best
ambiguous, and as such, Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act
(2015) should apply:
"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could
have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to
the consumer is to prevail."
The meaning that is most favourable to the consumer here is the
one that means parking outside of the times stated is allowed
without the payment of a tariff, and thus no breach has
occurred.
As the driver did not fail to purchase the appropriate parking
time (as no tariff was due), nor did they remain at the car park
for longer than permitted, the charge is not owed and the appeal
should be upheld.
#Post#: 26830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Carpark charge before 5pm
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: June 19, 2024, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Some suggestions. First, instead of 'Dear sirs', start with the
POPLA verification code and vehicle registration mark, like in
the example I shared.
Also, as I noted in an early reply, I'm on the fence about
whether to include point #3 (about the ambiguous signage) at
this stage. Part of me thinks it would be better to leave this
out - once you've submitted your appeal, ParkingEye have an
opportunity to respond with an 'evidence pack', and you in turn
have an opportunity to respond to their evidence pack. you could
see if they try to argue that parking is not permitted outside
the tariff times, then, if they do, you respond with point #3.
The other part of me thinks get it on the table now, and head
them off before they even try it. See if others take a view,
although the more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards
including it.
When submitting, as in the example I shared, don't write your
appeal in the online POPLA form, attach it as a PDF document so
you can keep the formatting and the image of the sign.
I've tried to make it flow slightly better, but this might just
be a personal style thing so it's up to you:
[indent]POPLA Verification Code: ________
VRM: ________
I am appealing this parking charge notice in my capacity as the
registered keeper. I am appealing on the grounds that the driver
did not breach any of the terms of parking as advertised by the
signage on the site.
The signage at the site (a copy of which is included below)
states that tariffs apply between 5pm-8am Monday-Friday, & all
day Saturday and Sunday.
[INCLUDE PHOTO OF SIGNAGE HERE INLINE]
ParkingEye issued a parking charge for "either not purchasing
the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for
longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and
conditions set out in the signage".
I contend that the driver did not do either of these things, and
that as such, the terms and conditions were not breached,
meaning this appeal should be upheld. My appeal is based on the
following 3 grounds
1. The driver did not park during the times when tariffs apply,
thus no payment was required - The signage at the site states
that tariffs apply between 5pm-8am Monday-Friday, & all day
Saturday and Sunday. If parking is offered to the general public
at all hours and on all days, then there is no ambiguity about
these terms which can only be interpreted as meaning that, as
regards whether parking is subject to payment of a tariff,
parking is chargeable between 5pm and 8am Monday to Friday; from
5pm to midnight on Fridays; and all hours Saturday and Sunday.
It therefore follows that parking is not subject to the payment
of a tariff outside of these times. As the vehicle was parked
on a Friday at 9.05am and left at 1.27pm the same day, no tariff
was due, so the first limb of ParkingEye's allegation, that the
driver did not purchase the appropriate parking time, is without
merit.
2.The car park is not subject to a maximum stay period, thus the
driver did not remain for longer than permitted - The second
limb of the creditor's allegation is that the vehicle 'remained
at the car park for longer than permitted'. However, the full
terms have been reproduced above (and can be seen in the
attached photo) and the assessor will notice that the landowner
has not applied any maximum parking period on motorists. It
therefore follows that this limb of the creditor's allegation,
that the vehicle remained at the car park for longer than
permitted, is also without merit.
3. If ParkingEye contend that parking is not permitted outside
of the times when tariffs apply, this term is not adequately
communicated - It is not implied by the signage that parking
outside the hours of 5pm-8am for the general public is not
permitted. If ParkingEye had meant for this, then it should be
clearly stated. If ParkingEye wish to argue that this is the
intended interpretation of the signage, then that term is at
best ambiguous, and as such, Section 69 of the Consumer Rights
Act (2015) should apply:
[indent]"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice,
could have different meanings, the meaning that is most
favourable to the consumer is to prevail."[/indent]
[i]In this case, the meaning that is most favourable to the
consumer is the one that means parking outside of the times
stated is allowed without the payment of a tariff, and thus no
breach has occurred.
In addition, if the intended meaning is that parking is not
permitted outside of the times when tariffs apply, the signage
is not compliant with section 19.3 of the BPA's Code of
Practice, which states that "Signs must be conspicuous and
legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are
easy to see, read and understand". A sign containing such
ambiguous terms would clearly fail to meet this requirement.
As the driver did not fail to purchase the appropriate parking
time (as no tariff was due), nor did they remain at the car park
for longer than permitted, I contend that the charge is not owed
and the appeal should be upheld.[/indent]
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page