Park direct PCN - Appeal rejected

[Saskii]

Hi

I am at the stage of appealing to POPLA but need some advice.

 

On the 14th August I received via post an invoice from Park direct issued 11th August.

 

I have a newborn and he had been sick so I briefly parked in a residential car park and sat in the back seat to attend to him. I stayed in the car park for less than 5 mins and did not exit the vehicle. The invoice stated that I must pay £100 reduced to £60 if I paid within 14 days. I replied back on the 17th stating I should not pay this invoice as I did not enter any contract as I did not leave the vehicle and with a newborn why would I leave the car without him and I would not have had any time to read any signs. In doing so they maintain upon immediately entering the car park whether I have read the signs or not, I have entered into a contract with them.

 

There are pictures taken of my vehicle which are less than 5 mins apart and at a bit of a distance. Park direct maintain the vehicle was empty and the photos prove this but I was in the car and bent over to attend to my son. I think they did a sneaky job and took photos where I was in the back seat leaning over him! This makes me so angry!!

 

I also asked them to show me how the invoice for £100 was justifiable and how I was causing an inconvenience (all bays were empty at this point). They quoted Beavis vs parking eye and did not provide a breakdown which I had requested showing me any losses or how they arrived at that amount.

 

I lastly asked to see the contract between the landlord and themselves which give authority that they can issue invoices and they refused on the ground they are under no legal obligation to do so.

 

They did provide a POPLA appeal number which I asked for and also urged me to pay right away.

 

I did return to the scene to check. The nearest sign to me was about 15 metres away although visible but was in the bushes. It is more of a warning sign but does not issue terms and conditions of parking, other than no stopping or waiting without a permit or you will be fined. I was always under the impression that private operators usually give more lengthy terms and conditions? The way the sign was situated, one could assume it was for the car park next to the one I was in as all the bays in the area I had parked in had a "V" painted on the bay, so is it right to assume this is a visitor bay?

 

I want to appeal to POPLA as I don't think that this is right! How should I go about it? Any advice would be greatfully received.

[dx100uk]

any marking on the tarmac of a private carpark are purely graffiti and have no legal standing

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

Your appeal should start off with a statement that Beavis v PE is still the subject of a determination in the Supreme Court

and for Park Direct to quote it as case law is contempt of court.

 

Your next point of appeal is that PD have failed to show a cause for their claim

by failing to show sight of any assignment from the landowner to them that would allow PD to make claims

and take civil action in their own name so you demand sight of this supposed contract.

 

Then you can say that the claim does not sit with the BPA Codes of Practice with regard to proportionality

by allowing a grace period and is a misuse of the provisions of para 6 and 9 of the PoFA

by not handing the notice to the driver when given the opportunity.

 

 

As there was someone on site to take the photographs they could have requested you move or issue a ticket in person

had you refused to do so as per para 6 and 8 of the POFA you require PD to show what reason they have not notified the driver at the time.

Therefore PD have failed to mitigate their actions and any losses that may have been caused should a contract exist.

 

Then say that the signage is not at the entrance to the private land and behind a bush so not legible

and therefore it cannot be said that a contract was offered, considered and accepted.

 

 

The wording on the signage when inspected subsequently was so vague as to be unintelligable as far as contract law

is concerened so again no contract could be formed.

 

 

Should the wording be considered to be intelligible enough to the man in the street it is clear that the charge is not a contractual sum

agreed but damages for breach of contract

 

 

so you demand to see a schdule of loss for PD that only contains the losses occurring

because the employee present to take the photographs couldnt prevent them.

[Saskii]

I wanted to come back and update you all!

 

First off HUGE thank you to those who took the time to answer! I

 

appealed to POPLA and it was in my favour!!

 

I went back to the car park and took some pictures.

They did have someone on site...but he was hiding around the corner taking pictures on his phone of other motorists who had parked there.

 

As I already knew, the signs were tiny and there was nothing to indicate that it was a private car park at the entrance.

 

I took my pictures and uploaded my case to the website.

 

I did mention other points including the covert way they issued the invoice, the unrealistic charge and wanting to see their VAT status in the breakdown of the invoice

 

but the point they took into consideration was the signage,

which go against Section 18.2 of the BPA code of Practice.

 

It was well worth appealing, and I am so happy I did and would advise others to do so also.

 

Sending an invoice for £100 was so unfair and extortionate.

 

Never going back to the scene of the crime, but very happy with outcome

 

Thanks again!

[ericsbrother]

well done, POPLA onlly determines on one point becasue that is all that is needed. Doesnt mean the other arguments didnt carry so bear that in mind for the future.

[Bazooka Boo]

Excellent news well done...