Parking Ticket - Portishead Marina

Rebuttal of Pictures Provided by ParkingEye.

The pictures of the signage that ParkingEye Ltd have provided have been taken in 1) daylight and 2) up close to the signs. By their own photos it can be seen that there is no sufficient lighting around the signs, nor is there sufficient street lighting nearby. The incident in question took place at night time at around 8pm, and I remain adamant that you are unable to see these signs in the dark. The photos provided by POPLA do not reflect the lack of lighting around them at night. The photos provided have also not been taken recently, they were taken on 31st March 2014. This is over a year and half before this incident took place. The images also do not demonstrate the height at which they stand, which I submit is too high for a driver of a small car to see in the dark.

Two further pictures of the vehicle have been received, which I have had not previously had sight of. However, again due to the insufficient lighting in the car park the only reason the car registration number plate can be seen is due to the lighting from the vehicle, not lighting from the car park or from street lighting surrounding it.

The land is not relevant land for the purpose of POFA

In my submission to POPLA, I highlighted that the parking at Portishead Quays Marina is subject to Bristol City Docks byelaws and this site is therefore not relevant land.

Within its evidence pack, ParkingEye has made no attempt to dispute this and POPLA may therefore reasonably conclude that ParkingEye accepts that it has no statutory right to utilise the provisions of POFA to hold vehicles’ keepers liable for unpaid parking charges.

ParkingEye’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA

Within its evidence pack, ParkingEye has made no attempt to dispute my points regarding the failure of its Notice to Keeper to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. POPLA may therefore reasonably conclude that ParkingEye accepts that its Notice to Keeper did not comply with POFA.

ParkingEye has no standing or authority to pursue charges or to form contracts with drivers

Within its evidence pack, ParkingEye has included a scanned copy of a contract document which it claims provides proof that it has the Landholder’s authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this location.

However, the copy is of such poor quality that it is not possible to read much of its content. I refer you to the determination by assessor Nial Vivian in a similar case (i.e. POPLA Reference 6062785103) as follows:

"The appellant has stated that they do not believe the operator has the relevant authority of the landowner to pursue charges from or form contracts with motorists using the car park in question. Section 7 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. Upon reviewing the evidence, the operator has provided me with a copy of a signed contract. However, the quality of the document renders it unreadable, and as such I am not able to confirm that it is a contract between the operator and landowner confirming that the landowner has conveyed such authority to the operator".

POPLA may reasonably conclude that ParkingEye has not provided any clear evidence that it had the Landholder's authority to operate at this site.

The car park signage failed notify the driver that ParkingEye intended to exercise its rights under POFA

In my initial submission to POPLA, I highlighted that I had good reason to believe that the car park signs did not clearly advise the driver that ParkingEye intended to use the data captured by its ANPR cameras as a means to pursue payment of the parking charge from the vehicle’s registered keeper (in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA) in the event that they remained unpaid by the driver.

This is now confirmed by ParkingEye’s evidence pack in which ParkingEye demonstrates that:

• Its signs give notice of how and for what purpose the data captured by its ANPR cameras would be used only after a motorist has entered the car park, not before.
• Its car park signs do not warn motorists that data captured by its ANPR cameras would be used for the purpose of enforcing cases of trespass
• Its car park signs do not warn motorists that data captured by its ANPR cameras would be used for the purpose of pursuing unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s registered keeper in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA.
• The establishment of keeper liability under POFA is not automatic; it is conditional upon a) the operator choosing to exercise its right to use the provisions of POFA and b) then fully complying with the strict requirements of POFA. In the absence of the car park signs giving a clear warning that ParkingEye intended to use POFA to claim keeper liability, motorists (in accordance with their rights under Paragraph 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2015) are reasonably entitled to conclude that ParkingEye do not intend to use POFA.
• Although with the naked eye it was impossible to read much of the writing on the pictures of the signs in ParkingEye’s evidence pack, by using the “magnify” function on my PDF reader I have been able to reproduce ParkingEye’s “small print” as follows:
•
• "ParkingEye Ltd (Company No: 5134454) is authorised by the landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf. We are not responsible for the car park surface, other motor vehicles, damage or loss to or from motor vehicles or general site safety. Parking is at the absolute discretion of the landowner and the terms and conditions that apply are set out within this notice (the “Parking Contract”). By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the”Parking Contract”) and are authorised to park, only if you follow these correctly, including making payment where directed, entering your registration details via the payment and/or permit systems. If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the “Parking Charge”). This Parking Contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties. By entering this private car park, you consent for the purpose of parking control and enforcement of the Parking Contract to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided via the payment or permit systems; correspondence; telephone; or in person, by ParkingEye Ltd and any authorized sub-contractor. A reduction of at least 40% of the Parking Charge will be available for a period of 14 days. Failure to pay the Parking Charge within this period will result in the full amount becoming payable. Where Parking Charges remain unpaid beyond 28 days, recovery charges in respect of further action may apply. A charge reflecting the cost to ParkingEye may apply for payments made with a credit/debit card”.


I draw POPLA’s attention to the following:

• This “small print” is clearly a set of generic terms and conditions written for use in car parks where motorists have permission to park, subject to their agreement to ParkingEye’s “Parking Contract”. These terms are inappropriate for use in this particular car park because non-compliance is a matter of trespass rather than breach of contract. It is obviously impossible to form a “Parking Contract” with a motorist for whom parking is expressly forbidden.
• The condition that “by entering this private car park, you consent for the purpose of parking control and enforcement of the Parking Contract to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided via the payment or permit systems, by ParkingEye Ltd to check compliance with the Parking Contract;and to the processing of this data to request registered keeper details from the DVLA” is unenforceable. Even if this condition had been clearly brought to the driver’s attention, this would have been after the driver had already entered the car park, not before. Furthermore as detailed above, in the case of trespass there could be no “Parking Contract”; ParkingEye’s notice did not specify that the data captured would be used to identify trespassers.

It is of fundamental importance that nowhere on the sign did ParkingEye warn the driver that it would seek to rely upon Schedule 4 of POFA to claim payment of the Parking Charge from the registered keeper should the charge remain unpaid. From the motorist’s perspective, in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act 2015, the most favourable meaning of the statement that “Parking Charges incurred will, in the first instance, be notified to the registered keeper” is simply that the registered keeper will be made aware of the Parking Charges in order that they may then forward the details on to the driver to deal with. In the absence of any clear statement by ParkingEye to the contrary, any motorist reading the sign would be reasonably entitled to infer that ParkingEye was one of the many private parking companies that do not seek to rely upon the provisions of POFA to claim keeper liability.