Hi all, Just had an update from POPLA and their new online portal. They say that the operator has submitted evidence, however you login to the portal only to find that they will be sending evidence independently. I have 7 days to comment upon their evidence, which seems a bit pointless as they haven't provided any for me to pass comment on. Should I draft up something along the lines of lack of evidence further validates my case and the inability to comment upon any other evidence provided hinders my ability to successfully appeal?

Many thanks all. I've also managed to get a picture of the plastic envelope which breaches the BPA code of practice, so I've added that on. POPLA look like they are changing over so I've registered my intent to appeal but can't move any further forward

I've borrowed the first 3 points from a POPLA appeal I found online and added in breaches in relation to BPA CoP. Let me know what you think. 1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either. 2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract. 3. Car Parking Partnership (CPP) do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi. 4. PPS have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice. 5. Citation of Parking Eye v Barry Beavis 1. The charges are penalties. The charges are represented as a Trespass. Whilst it is disputed that a contract was entered into (see point 2) according to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance" £50 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was entitled to be in but could not park in an appropriate bay. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense. You either trespass or you don't. If you allow trespass when it suits you it's not trespass. As this is clearly a trespass scenario, although not described as such, the charges in law need to be a genuine pre estimate of loss. I require CPP to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. CPP cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same. According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.'' In Parking Eye v Beavis it was found that the charges were penalties although specific to that car park they were commercially Justifiable which clearly can't be in the case or trespass. 2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers. I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £50 in a car park - and therefore I contend the elements of a contract were conspicuous by their absence. If it is dark it is not good enough for signs just to be present, they must be able to be seen. 3. Contract with landowner - no locus standi CPP do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that CPP has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow CPP to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers. In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid. So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between CPP and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 In that case the Judge found that, as the Operator did not own any title in the car park: 'The decision to determine whether it is damages for breach...or a penalty...is really not for these Claimants but...for the owners. We have a rather bizarre situation where the Claimants make no money apparently from those who comply with the terms...and make their profit from those who are in breach of their contract. Well that cannot be right, that is nonsense. So I am satisfied that...the Claimants are the wrong Claimants. They have not satisfied this court that they have suffered any loss...if anything, they make a profit from the breach.' I challenge this Operator to rebut my assertion that their business model is the same 'nonsense', and is unenforceable. CPP cannot build their whole business model around profiting from those they consider to be in breach of a sign, on land where they have no locus standi, and then try to paint that profit as a perpetual loss. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC (EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be." The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services." In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above. 4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required. - 18.2 states that terms and conditions for parking must be displayed, these are not. - 18.2 Entrance signs must also state that the car park is managed, they do not. - There is no sign providing detailed terms and conditions as per point 18.3. - Under 18.4 if CPP intends to use the provisions of the Keeper liability (Schedule 4 of POFA 2012), as stated in their correspondence, they are required to give ‘adequate notice’ of “the sum payable for unauthorised parking”. This provision is not met within signage. Likewise “adequately bringing charges to the attention of drivers”, the pay and display machines are inconsistent, offering two separate pay schemes. - 18.5 states that “chance to read terms and conditions before entering a contract” should be given. This cannot be the case as the terms and conditions are not displayed within this car park. -18.8 states signs should include the BPA AOS logo to prove legitimacy, none of the signs or pay machines contain a logo. - 19.3 “charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions”, as none of the signs contain terms and conditions they do not contain charges. These breaches of the code of practice show the lack of: - an established contract - terms and conditions - Breach of keeper liability enforcement (Schedule 4 of POFA) - Logo and clarity 5. Citation of Parking Eye v Barry Beavis This case is currently pending Supreme Court action, citation as evidence against enforceability of the charge is invalid until the case is resolved.

Date of event: 10th July 2015 Windscreen Ticket - Details checked and all correct Date of Letter: 12th August 2015 Appeal was the same day as the letter came through Rejection of appeal: 18th August Today I went back and looked at the signage and entrance. The barrier doesn't work and the side is open into a different car park. Machines aren't exactly consistent and can't see any link to CPP or BPA on any signs. The terms and conditions to park are different on the two pay machines as well. [ATTACH=CONFIG]59022[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]59023[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]59024[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]59025[/ATTACH]

There's a verification code which I presume is the one? The first communication was a CPP letter about 2 weeks ago, I appealed on their online portal and they replied with the above. I'm popping up tomorrow so I will take photos of the car park, from memory there is no sign at the entrance to the specific car park (multiple ones on the site). They've recently added multiple small signs along the perimeter fence.

Yep they have sent me popla appeal details. July 10th at 8:47. Parked in a hospital pay and display but I didn't have a ticket. I appealed using the above letter which was rejected and received the letter photographed. So I'm looking at putting together a popla appeal. Just unsure of the content as none of the appeals previously have been unsuccessful.

Well they make it disappear..... Advice appreciated

Apologies I meant to attach my appeal letter. Not sure which category it falls under

Hi all, I received a ticket from Carparkingpartnership. I normally send them the standard letter at which point they scrap the fine. However this time they have rejected my appeal. Any help and guidance would be gratefully received