DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24253--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: May 28, 2024, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> I would include that variously the PPC is in breach of an
implied term of the contract (that the machine will accept the
required payment) and trying to hold you liable for their
failure and/or that the contract was frustrated by the failure
of their machine.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks Andy, should I lead with this in my appeal? Is my
evidence attached in the original post enough to back up this
argument?
#Post#: 24257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: b789
Date: May 28, 2024, 8:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You address a POPLA appeal to the POLA assessor. You are the
appellant and the parking company is the operator.
You are not providing evidence of "landowner authority". You are
telling the POPLA assessor that the operator has not provided
evidence of landowner authority. Therefore the burden of proof
lies on the operator to prove that they do have that authority.
If you are arguing inadequate signage, then you are pointing out
deficiencies and breaches of the BPA CoP and the operator has to
rebut those arguments.
Of course you lead with your main argument about their system
failure. You show the evidence of that failure and it is up to
the operator to rebut that evidence.
Include the argument pointed out by
[member=10]andy_foster[/member] about the breach of an implied
term in the contract.
Have read of the BPA CoP
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf<br
/>and the CRA 2015
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents
for other
things and how you may want to word them in your appeal.
#Post#: 24258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 28, 2024, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Thanks Andy, should I lead with this in my appeal?
--- End Quote ---
I would - it's the main meritoious point you have raised, so I'd
lead with it, then follow up with the others that b789 has
suggested.
#Post#: 24282--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: May 28, 2024, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you both so much. Would you be happy for me to post a
draft of what I am planning to put into my appeal for you to
critique? Would it be better for me to DM you? Should I offer to
pay the correct amount in my appeal (should have been £6.50 for
the time parked) or is this unnecessary?
#Post#: 24283--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 28, 2024, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes post a draft here for comment. I wouldn't offer to pay the
amount it should have been. Your appeal will be making the point
that the driver already intended and attempted to pay the
correct tariff on the day but was prevented from doing so due to
the failure of the operator's machine.
#Post#: 24286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: May 28, 2024, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay will do! One last thing, can I still use the argument that
An invitation for the keeper to pay the charge was not given?
Also is this the same as lack of prominence of the charge for
breaching the terms?
#Post#: 24303--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 28, 2024, 3:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
An invitation for the keeper to pay the charge (which would seem
to be somewhat implicit on an NtK asking the keeper to pay the
charge) is part of the requirement under PoFA 2012 to hold the
keeper vicariously liable when they do not know the identity of
the driver. If they know the identity of the driver, PoFA 2012
is irrelevant as far as any legal claim against the driver is
concerned.
Whether POPLA would uphold an appeal on such a ground might be a
different matter though.
Making an onerous term prominent as a requirement of the common
law for enforcing such terms as well as being a requirement of a
CoP. This has nothing to do with whether or not you have blabbed
about who was driving - this goes to the enforceablility of the
term at law.
#Post#: 24358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: May 29, 2024, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"Making an onerous term prominent as a requirement of the common
law for enforcing such terms as well as being a requirement of a
CoP"
Is any of this worth adding in my appeal and if so how does it
apply to my case?
Also sorry to ask, but what does NtK stand for?
#Post#: 24361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: b789
Date: May 29, 2024, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
An NtK is the 'Notice to Keeper' that was sent to you as the
Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
#Post#: 24455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Euro Car Parks - Payment did not cover duration of stay but
machine wouldn't let the driver pay more
DIR By: Harmonyguru
Date: May 30, 2024, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there everyone. Please find below an initial draft of my
appeal. Points addressed as ?? are additional purposed points
and therefore have no been developed. If you believe any of
these have the potential to be useful please let me know and I
will develop them. Thank you all for what you have already
offered, I am beyond grateful.
"APPEAL: POPLA REFERENCE: 2411454240
Euro Car Parks NtK
Date of issue: 22/04/2024
VEHICLE REG: VU71FYJ
Accused Breach of Terms and Conditions: Your payment or
validation did not cover the duration of stay
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am
appealing against above charge. I propose that this has been
issued incorrectly and have evidence to prove this. I contend
that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following
grounds and would ask that they are all considered. EURO CAR
PARKS failed to display the correct time upon payment, within
their NtK there is no invitation to the keeper to pay the
charge, they have not provided evidence of landowner authority
and the signage fails to meet the required British Parking
Association standards.
1. On the date in question, when the driver used the payment
system provided, Euro Car Parks system failed to display the
correct time. As you can clearly see from *evidence of reciept*
the *START TIME OF PARKING SESSION* is time stamped at 10:38pm
which is a direct contradiction of the vehicle time arrival Euro
Car Parks have claimed in their initial response to my appeal.
Variously the PPC is in breach of an implied term of the
contract (that the machine will accept the required payment) and
trying to hold the driver liable for their failure and/or that
the contract was frustrated by the failure of their machine.
2. There are also failures in their NtK that prevents them from
transferring the liability from the driver to the the keeper due
to no invitation to the keeper to pay the charge as required by
the strict provisions of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). As that requirement is
missing, the NtK is not fully compliant with the requirements of
PoFA and they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the
keeper.
3. The operator in question has not provided evidence of
landowner authority. *WHAT EVIDENCE DO I NEED TO REFERENCE
HERE?* Therefore the burden of proof lies on the operator EURO
CAR PARKS to prove that they do have that authority.
4. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the
British Parking Association standards and there was no valid
contract between the parking company and the driver. Following
receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in
question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that
the parking company are relying upon do not offer sufficient
customer support. The Operator needs to show evidence of support
in the event of system errors - specifically providing a contact
support that could adepately address and error such as system
errors. Please refer to *EVIDENCE OF SIGNAGE FOR PARKING TERMS
AND CONDITIONS* to see that no offer or support or contact is
provided if any errors or failures in their systems occur. The
number provided on their PAYMENT RECEIPT *cite evidence of
reciept* and on their signage does not provide an option to
speak to an operator or even leave a message so EURO CAR PARKS
have failed to provide adequate support for customers. Their
signage also states 'PLEASE VSIIT THE PAY STATION TO PAY FOR
PARKING BEFORE RETURNING TO YOUR VEHICLE'. I believe the signs
failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the
terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA
Code of Practice appendix B. The driver followed these
instructions and therefor forfilled the terms and conditions set
out thus invalidating the NtK in question. I require the
operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.
??. Planning consent is required for car parks and have
conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a
service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and
ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I
have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this
change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide
evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current
parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park. 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.
??. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that
they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged
contravention.
??. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that
permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these
charges through the courts.
This concludes my appeal.
Thank you for your consideration."
Any and all critique massively appreciated
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page