Parking Eye Penalty Notice Charge - Canvey Island Seafront

Thank you Coupon Mad. I have drafted my rebuttal. Please let me know what you think, when you get a chance.


REBUTTAL OF EVIDENCE

SECTION A – EVIDENCE CHECKLIST

Rules and Conditions
How can this be a paid parking car park when there are no phone numbers to pay by card or Paid Parking machines to insert coins which then produce a ticket? Parking Eye’s own photographic evidence does not show any paid parking machines.

Evidence G
Which system generated this print out? The ANPR system? As there were no paid parking machines present in the car park (as shown in the photographic evidence here) so which system was this?

Supply Agreement/”Contract” - Why can the full document not be shown? If it is a legally binding agreement that proves they own the land then why not? Also this is called a ‘supply agreement’ and not a ‘contract’ as you stipulate here and it was signed by a ‘partner’ and not by ‘the property manager’ as ParkingEye also incorrectly state here. There isn’t even a name for the said signature! If this is the so called landowner agreement that ParkingEye have with the landowner then there is no way that there can be a legally binding contract between ParkingEye and the Registered Keeper.

Grace Period
Grace periods are irrelevant when you cannot prove that the vehicle was definitely parked in this car park. The photographic evidence supplied here does not show that the car was parked in this car park at the time stated.

Further Information
If ParkingEye ensured that all signage was clear and ample, in line with the British Parking Association regulations then why produce out of date photographic evidence of a car park that dates as far back as 2008 which is 9 and half years ago right up to 2016! It is appalling that out of date photos are being used to try to justify issuing a parking ticket when the conditions of the car park in question are very run down, with no clear and ample signage and no paid parking machines which ParkingEye so clearly state in their Terms and Conditions in this very evidence! They cannot even provide the photographic evidence of these in this case.

“Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.”
What about maintenance and ensuring the general upkeep of this technology? There is certainly no evidence to suggest that ParkingEye ensure the regular testing of their cameras, signage and other technology at a site to ensure that it is all clearly labelled and easy to see and find, their out of date photographic evidence prove this – where are the paid parking machines? Were they ever in this car park? If ParkingEye do not maintain the site enough to update the signs and ensure their clear visibility then they must not have visited to remove these paid parking machines? So were they ever there? It would appear that ParkingEye are attempting to catch drivers out in order to issue parking charges and keep their business thriving, which is wholly unethical and needs to be stopped.


SECTION B – CASE SUMMARY / COPY OF ANY TERMS/CONDITIONS
Page 5 states under payment options – paid parking machines. This is untrue as there were no paid parking machines in this car park on that day and ParkingEye’s photographs in this evidence do not show any either which only proves this point.


SECTION D – REGISTERED KEEPER / LIABILITY TRAIL

As already mentioned, the photographs on page 15 of the car show no direct link to this car park. There is no proof that the vehicle was either parked or driving through this car park from these photographs as they merely show a portion of the car and nothing surrounding the area, only a gravel stoned path.


SECTION E -ORIGINAL REPRESENTATION / NOTICE OF REJECTION

Page 26 of Parking Eye’s evidence under this section clearly shows an undated letter and it is unclear as to why this was included in this evidence as payment was never requested from Parking Eye. It does however state that ‘you have not formed a legally binding contract with Parking Eye which you have acquired any right to invoice ParkingEye and/or seek payment for goods or services, and the sum sought is therefore rejected’. This is clear and so there cannot be a contract made between the Registered Keeper and ParkingEye, as clearly stated here. Therefore this parking charge is null and void if no contract was ever made.


SECTION F -IMAGES, PHOTOGRAPHS AND PLANS ETC

Signage Plan
This address does not match that which is stated on the Parking Charge, the parking charge only states ‘Seafront Canvey Island’ – why was the below address not clearly shown on the parking charge if this was the case?

Seafront Canvey Island
31-33 Eastern Esplanade
Canvey Island
Essex SS8 7DN

The signs shown do not have a contact phone number to ring up and make payment if there are no paid ticket machines within the car park, which there weren’t in this case. So how could somebody have made a payment even if these signs were allocated where Parking Eye are saying they were, even though their own photographic evidence does not back this statement up?

The signs on the day in question did not clearly show as these signs do, that parking was free for patrons of the nearby businesses. If this was the case, then surely this should have been made clear as soon as a vehicle drove into the car park itself. It was not.

Photographs
The clear time stamp on each of these photographs is incorrect. Some say 12th November 2015 whilst others say 2015/09/08 and there is no evidence to suggest that this car park even looks like this now or on the date in question. It certainly did not when the driver visited. The text below the photographs is also contradictory as the different dates are years before the car was even supposed to have parked here - 25th April 2016 and 14th November 2015. These photos are used to detract from the lack of signage in the current car park and the state that this car park is now in.

Sign type 1b is dated 2015/09/08 and sign type 1a is dated 12/11/2015. How is this sufficient evidence to display the most recent state of this car park and where the signs are in place? According to the driver, this looks like a completely different car park and is not proof of where these signs are actually located at the present time. They are merely pictures of signs, with nothing to suggest that they are actually in this car park to begin with – some of them could be located anywhere! The Site Overview picture is just somebody placing text boxes onto a picture – there is no proof that the signs were allocated in these positions. Again, the signage allocation page is not valid as there is no proof that the signs are in place and is merely a key to the picture below it. Pointless piece of paper and certainly not ‘evidence’.


SECTION G - OTHER EVIDENCE
Whitelist Lookup – EK55 DFE
What is the point of this part of Parking Eye’s evidence? It only states ‘no results’. This could have been typed up by anybody and certainly does not prove anything.


This is not sufficient evidence to prove that Parking Eye are the landowner of the Canvey Island seafront car park for the below reasons:-

Supply Agreement for Car Park Management – Basic
This appears to be a makeshift document created by Parking Eye.
The copy scanned is very poor quality and is barely legible, it is difficult to tell what the text says and who the company and individual names are.
It is also dated 20th March 2012 which is over 5 years ago.
There is no mention of the site name and/or address on this document so how can this proven to be the correct car park that the driver was supposedly in?
The signature for the ‘customer’ on this document is not clear as it merely states ‘partner’ under the Name section so where is the proof of the person who actually signed this? Also why is the agreement dated 20th March but the signature was on the 19th March, why not the same date as the agreement? Who is Rachel Ledson and who does she actually work for? Your agreement states that she is Head of Legal Services with yourselves. However, according to LinkedIn, there is only one Rachel Ledson and she is Head of Legal Services at Capita in Preston, UK who are an entirely different company and definitely not ParkingEye! Surely this document is then not legally binding if the person who signed it doesn’t even work for ParkingEye?
What appears to be 2 pages of Terms and Conditions at the end of this one page agreement are completely illegible on this scanned document.
Why do black boxes appear in parts of this agreement, if Parking Eye has nothing to hide?
If the signs in your evidence state that parking is free to patrons of the businesses directly opposite then why does this document say ‘no free stay’ under the car park free stay time limit. Who is this business? The writing is very difficult to read but does it say Starr Snooker? In which case, why on the Movie Starr website, under the Starr Snooker section does it say that “Movie Starr has its own private car park directly opposite” Are they Movie Starr, the cinema? In which case shouldn’t this agreement be signed by them and not Starr Snooker if they are in actual fact the owners? In which case wouldn’t this mean that your makeshift agreement here is not legally binding? Also why does it not say that it is free to park here for all patrons (of the Movie Starr cinema amongst others) as it does on the signs and on their website but not in your agreement? Contradictory evidence indeed.

Wow thanks so much for the swift response! And yes I will change it as you suggest and post further tomorrow just to double check that it's ok to send to POPLA.

I cannot read the small print on the contract as it's way too unclear, blurry and small unfortunately but will take a closer look in the morning at work.

ANPR unreliability - did you mean the fact I say that my car could be anywhere from the camera pics or?

I meant I have emailed it to them :-)