Parking Eye Ticket for ALDI Margate - what next?

So here's another shot at a POPLA appeal. Thoughts?

Dear POPLA

POPLA Ref. xxxx
ParkingEye PNC no. xxxx

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of a vehicle, in respect of an alleged breach of parking conditions at “ALDI Margate" on XX XX 2016.

I appeal to you that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.
4) ParkingEye didn’t allow the reasonable grace period required under the BPA c o p.


1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

I do not believe that ParkingEye has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I contend that ParkingEye merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require ParkingEye to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits ParkingEye to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). A witness statement would not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the services provided would not be stated in such a vague template document.


2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.

Since receiving this PCN I have visited the car park where the parking event allegedly occurred, and feel that the signage is not adequate. The British Parking Association CoP requires that terms and conditions on car parking signs must be clearly readable. The signs around the car park detailing the terms and conditions of parking are approximately 2 metres off the ground, which is above the average height for an adult and contain a large amount of writing in small lettering that is not easy to read.

3) ParkingEye didn’t allow the reasonable grace period required under the BPA c o p.

Clause 13.4 of your Code of Practice states that, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” ANPR cameras are on the entrance and exit road of the car park and they have failed to take into account any grace periods when issuing the parking charge notice. That is time to enter the car park, find a space, study the contract on offer (signs) and accept. ParkingEye state that the vehicle was in the car park for 1 hours and 41 minutes. With a mandatory grace period upon exit of 10 minutes, 11 minutes doesn’t seem unreasonable in this context.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

Ok here's a revision as per Redx's comments excluding the point about advertising consent for signs - I'm looking into that. No NTK errors Redx.
_____

Dear POPLA

POPLA Ref. xxxx
ParkingEye PNC no. xxxx

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of a vehicle, in respect of an alleged breach of parking conditions at “ALDI Margate" on XX XX 2016.

I appeal to you that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.
4) ParkingEye didn’t allow the reasonable grace period required under the BPA c o p.


1) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

I do not believe that ParkingEye has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers in its own right, or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at Court level.

I contend that ParkingEye merely holds a basic licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I therefore require ParkingEye to provide POPLA and me with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract that it holds with the landowner. This is required so that I may be satisfied that this contract permits ParkingEye to make contracts with drivers in its own right and provides it with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in Court in its own name.

For the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). A witness statement would not comply with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the services provided would not be stated in such a vague template document.


2) The signage in the car park was inadequate.

Since receiving this PCN I have visited the car park where the parking event allegedly occurred, and feel that the signage is not adequate. The British Parking Association CoP requires that terms and conditions on car parking signs must be clearly readable. The signs around the car park detailing the terms and conditions of parking are approximately 2 metres off the ground, which is above the average height for an adult and contain a large amount of writing in small lettering that is not easy to read.

3) ParkingEye didn’t allow the reasonable grace period required under the BPA c o p.

Section 13 of the British Parking Association code of practise, states

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to reach your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

In reference to Clause 13.2, this ‘reasonable grace period’ should allow time to enter the car park, find a space, study the contract on offer (signs) and accept. This could take up to 10 minute on entering, and again on exiting, meaning that a reasonable grace period could in fact possibly be considered to be up to 15 or even 20 minutes in total during the visit.

ANPR cameras are on the entrance and exit road of the car park and they have failed to take into account any grace periods when issuing the parking charge notice. ParkingEye state that the vehicle was in the car park for 1 hours and 41 minutes. With a mandatory grace period upon exit of 10 minutes, 11 minutes doesn’t seem unreasonable in this context.

As per Clause 13.3 I require that ParkingEye provide details of the grace period for this car park to both POPLA and me. I did not see any reference to ParkingEye’s grace period in the signage (which again points to the inadequate signage at the site), nor in any of the subsequent notices or letters from ParkingEye.

Clause 13.4 of the Code of Practice states that the mandatory grace period should be a MINIMUM of 10 minutes but could be anything considered to be reasonable. I argue that 1 minute in excess of the absolute minimum cannot be considered unreasonable.

Furthermore with 11 minutes being a ‘reasonable grace period’ it is important to point out that this case significantly differs from that of Beavis vs ParkingEye case, since there was in fact no breach of contract.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,

Ok with regard to the advertising consent I have taken a look at the council's planning portal and can't find anything submitted by ParkingEye. I then found the following text proposed for inclusion in POPLA appeals. Should I include?

The signs advertising parking at the site measure over 1 square metre in area, and are visible from the public highway, but do not have advertising planning consent. They are therefore illegal under the ‘The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007’, which is criminal law. A contract cannot be formed with illegal instruments, this is a tenet of English law. So this charge must be struck out on these grounds alone.”

Thanks Redx. I'll include, or at least try to. There are only 2000 characters/box allowed and so I cannot actually include my whole argument.