Free Traffic Legal Advice

Opinions on my 2md draft?

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 - 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.

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.

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:

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:

"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."

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.

[/i]

Thank you. I have submitted this as the appeal.

It's such a poorly regulated industry.

Local news, facebook groups, local WhatsApp groups and so on.

They have no incentive to change until people start challenging all the erroneous tickets and it costs them in time and popla fees.

You might not have much luck with your MP at the moment given the pending election!

If you want to make a fuss, local news can often be a good place to start, they're sometimes fairly desperate for local stories. St Helens Star would be the first that comes to my mind, as they also have a free print edition delivered locally.

Either way, a good result, well done for your determination.

Thank you! Feel quite chuffed but definitely want to get.the sign changed. Alternatively I could keep parking there and keep appealing