ticket from total parking services

A question about : ticket from total parking services

Hello all

My girlfriend got a ticket from total parking services on Oxford road in Manchester. She was planning on using the online service to buy a ticket but didn't do it until about half 2, which was after the pcn had been issued. I appealed the ticket on the grounds that although a ticket wasn't purchased at the time the car was checked she did purchase a ticket for a 12 hour period and in fact wasn't in the car park for more than the time that would have been covered had she bought it in the morning. I also included a few standard defences from this forum such as it not being a gpeol but to no avail. They came back today with a denial and a breakdown of their alleged costs which included Ј66 for staff costs, which is ridiculous because that person was employed anyway.

I can post their response when I get back home but I'm just wondering whether you think it's worth going to POPLA or just paying the reduced amount

Thanks

Blankers

Best answers:

• Of course it is worth doing POPLA - Why on earth pay when you don't have to?
  Start by reading the Newbies Sticky carefuly - It contains all you need to get shot of this completely.
• TPS loses popla appeal (operator cancels charge)
  hot off the press
  https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...5132338&page=3
  surely YOU can do the same now I have linked the winning info you can adapt ?
• Hi Everyone
  Just for reference, here is what TCP sent back in response to my informal appeal. I'm particularly interested in the section that suggests they have a GPEOL and the breakdown. I feel that just because they stuck a bunch of numbers down that doesn't actually make it true.
  I'm unsure about what kind of signage they have on the site so I didn't appeal using that clause.
  For a POPLA appeal does the response to the informal appeal have any bearing or are they totally independent. I would argue that they haven't actually answered any of the questions I put forward or made any kind of reference to the fact that a parking ticket for 12 hours was purchased. What grounds do you think I would be best appealing to POPLA on in this case?
  I will post my original appeal in another post so Wall of Text doesn't take over
  Re: Parking Ticket Charge Number MA23535 (Vehicle: XXYYXXX)
  Site: Oxford Road
  Issue date: 28/01/2015
  I refer to your appeal received on 2nd February 2015 regarding the Parking Ticket Charge which was issued at the above car park.
  The Parking Ticket Charge was issued following observation of your vehicle by our parking attendant who deemed you to be in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the car park.
  The breach in question was:
  Parked without clearly displaying a valid ticket - Tickets are only valid when correctly displayed.
  It is your responsibility to ensure a ticket is displayed prior to leaving the vehicle.
  The Terms and Conditions of the car park are located, at the entrance to the car park, in and around the car park and at the Pay & Display machines. Under these Terms and Conditions a ticket must be displayed on the dashboard with the time and date clearly visible; or a valid parking session booked either via our website or RingGo (where applicable).
  At the time of the incident no valid ticket was displayed as required or a valid parking session found.
  In reference to the points you have raised;
  As a member of the BPA we have a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (GPEOL) in place which dictates our Parking Ticket Charges.
  Our Warning Signs do comply with the BPA Code of Practice; these specific signs have to be sent to the BPA for approval as they are the basis for our Contract. We have 32 Warning Signs prominently displayed around the car park which are sufficient to create a contract
  We are a reputable company and we have licences, management agreements, and contracts with all landowners, so we have standing to offer contracts
  Our “Parking Ticket Charge Notices” do comply with POFA 2012; these are specific to Total Car Parks Ltd and have to be sent to the BPA for approval.
  The consideration that we have offered is the ability to park on our car park and acceptance is the act of parking on our car park. The terms and conditions of the contract are clearly displayed around the car park.
  Formal Challenge
  This Parking Ticket Charge Notice was issued to you as the Registered Keeper of this vehicle as it was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions which apply at the Car Park stated above.
  Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the breach is liable for the unpaid parking charges however POFA allows us to pursue the Registered Keeper if the name and address of the driver are not known for service.
  “Drop Hands” Offer
  We will not accept a drop hands offer as we have a GPEOL which dictates our Parking Ticket Charges;
  please see below.
  GPEOL
  Item Cost
  DVLA Ј3.10
  Generated Letters Ј3.40
  Staff Costs Ј66.64
  Obligatory Memberships Ј2.91
  Parking Tariff Ј14.00
  BPA Mandatory Requirements Ј0.70
  Software & Equipment Costs Ј4.49
  Vehicle Ј6.22
  Total Ј101.46
  Notice of Cancellation of Contract
  By parking your vehicle in our Pay & Display Car Park, you agree to the Terms and Conditions.
  Please see attached the POPLA Form if your decision is to make an appeal to POPLA
  Please be advised we are audited annually by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA to ensure compliance with their Rules and Regulations.
  Your appeal has been reviewed and the parking attendant's photographs and notes have been taken into account; we have also considered the content of your letter and we are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Ticket Charge as it was issued correctly.
  Please find attached photographic evidence for your records.
  Following the rejection of your appeal, you now have a number of options available to you:-
  1. Pay the Parking Ticket Charge at the prevailing rate of Ј30 to reach us by 10/02/2015 Ј60 to reach us by 17/02/2015 or Ј100 to reach us by 03/03/2015. If payment is not made within 14 days you will be liable for the full amount of the original Parking Ticket Charge - Ј100.
  2. Make an appeal to POPLA - The Independent Appeals Service online by visiting
  You will need to quote verification code 8360345001.
  Please note that if you appeal to POPLA you will lose the right to pay the charge at the discounted rate of Ј30 to reach us by 10/02/2015 Ј60 to reach us by 17/02/2015 or Ј100 to reach us by 03/03/2015, and should POPLA's decision NOT be found in your favour you will be required to pay the full amount of Ј100.
  3. If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.
  Payment can be made by cheque payable to Total Car Parks Ltd and sent to the address on the
  Parking Ticket Charge or on-line at Please adhere to the Terms &
  Conditions of our car parks in order to avoid further Parking Ticket Charges.
  Yours Sincerely,
  PTC Processing Department
  Total Car Parks Ltd
• The following things are operating expenses and are not part of a real GPEOL:
  Staff Costs Ј66.64
  Obligatory Memberships Ј2.91
  BPA Mandatory Requirements Ј0.70
  Software & Equipment Costs Ј4.49
  Vehicle Ј6.22
  And I've no idea where they get:
  DVLA Ј3.10
  from either. The DVLA charge is Ј2.50, which would only be Ј3 if they included VAT.
  All they are allowed to pursue you for is what your alleged infringement cost them (at most the Ј14 day rate) and their costs up to the appeal, so the Ј2.50 from DVLA, and about Ј1/letter. The key part is "loss", and they can't include the costs of doing business i.e. what they'd pay even if there was no alleged infringement.
  So they say they have a GPEOL, but they don't have anything that'll pass POPLA.
  Ditto for the other points; they are not going to tell you that they aren't POFA2012 or BPA compliant, because it'd sink them.
• That was my thinking - Anything that they are paying for anyway they cant possibly include in the parking charge. Furthermore I don't think they have applied to the DVLA yet because if they had they would have known that the driver of the car in this instance (my girlfriend) was not the keeper of the car (me)
  Do you think that the fact that a ticket was purchased for 12 hours of parking and that the car was not parked for 12 hours is relevant? Or are we better off challenging on other grounds - GPEOL, contract, etc.
  I'm going to use the letter that was successful against TPS that somebody linked and alter it to suit my case.
  Thanks
• Here is a first draft - it is, at the moment a copy-paste job from a successful appeal with some of the irrelevant material (pertaining to permits) removed. The section in blue is going to be removed but I like the bit afterwards so need to find a way to integrate that quote with the relevant reference.
  My addition about having bought a ticket and therefore no loss has actually occurred is in green. What do people think about that, I'm happy to re-word it.
  Dear POPLA,
  I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and this is my appeal citing the following reasons
  1 No GPEOL
  2 Lack of standing
  I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for not displaying a valid Pay & Display ticket. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
  1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
  2. No landowner contract assigning rights to TPS to enforce contracts with drivers
  1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
  The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued because the employee was undoubtedly undertaking their standard duties which they were already being paid for.
  In any case, the Operator alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event. I require the Operator to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd 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 this case no loss exists so there is no initial sum to pursue, and they certainly cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. Appeals staff are already paid to do their admin job which includes handling appeals among other tasks, so there is no question that there is any 'loss' caused by these staff who are not 'significantly diverted' from their normal activity when they deal with challenges or POPLA stage. The same is true of the parking attendant who is already paid to visit sites and take photos & issue PCNs, and is not significantly diverted from this activity when a car is considered to be parked in breach.
  Judge Charles Harris QC in 'A Retailer v Ms B' stated:
  "[14] The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were significantly diverted from their usual activities or that there was any significant disruption to its business... Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. [15] The parking enforcement operative far from being diverted from his usual activities, was in fact actively engaged in them. He was doing just what the claimants paid for him to do... [16] So the claim in respect of staff time cannot, in my judgment, be established. I was not clear if, at the end of the case, the other two alleged heads of loss - administrative costs and security equipment costs - were still being sought. But, if so, these claims too cannot succeed. Neither can be shown to be attributable to the defendants' activities.The amounts spent by the claimant would have been identical had the defendants stayed at home... [17] It follows that the claims must be dismissed''
  POPLA Senior Assessor Chris Adamson stated on 3rd December 2014 in POPLA decision Reference 6862654003 which is relevant as it is a permit case:
  ''there is no dispute that the Appellant did in fact possess a permit. Permits are not analogous with pay and display tickets which are bought for an individual stay and represent proof of purchase. In this case the Appellant was a permit holder and so there was no loss in relation to the permit. The Operator has provided no other evidence of any initial loss.''
  and also the same Assessor has summed up many decisions thus:
  ''the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.'
  In further defence against the alleged loss incurred, a ticket was purchased for 12 hours of parking (TPS Invoice Ref 104424, Order Ref 117252) however the vehicle was parked for less than 12 hours therefore it stands that no loss can have occurred
  2) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
  TPS has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.
  BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put TPS to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). TPS have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that TPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.
  I require TPS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.
  I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
  Any feedback would be much appreciated!
• Hi all. Just bumping this. If anyone could take a look at my letter and give me some feedback that would be great
  Thanks
• Well
  I've sent this to POPLA with the Blue paragraph removed and we'll see what happens
• My appeal that I posted a few replies up. With the blue paragraph removed as it wasn't relevant.
  I wasn't getting any further feedback here and was running out of time to get the appeal in. Perhaps I've jumped the gun but felt I needed to get it sent in
  Popla have sent me the evidence that tps sent them, they're still standing by their gpeol amount.
  I'm expecting a response by the end of March
  Thanks
  Angus