IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
successful appeal
Options
we_beat_parking_eye
Posts: 2 Newbie
Hi all.
just wanted to say a thank you to all those that contribute to these parking threads. My wife and I have just had a few months of fun and games with parking eye and we have just won the case. Here is our final letter that won for us just incase it can help anyone else. Thanks again
Re:ParkingEye PCN, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Verification Code xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge fromParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for theparking charge:
1) No standing or authority topursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land (PavilionSquare, Scarborough), so they have no standing to make contracts with driversin their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In theabsence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from thelandowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at courtlevel. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statementso I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend thatParkingEye merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant)signs and to post out parking charge notices as a deterrent. A commercial siteagent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in theirown right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Codeof Practice.
I therefore ask ParkingEye to provide proof to POPLA and myself with anunredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye and thelandowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allowsthis Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them withfull authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court intheir own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that acontract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of thecontract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of theserestrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention,etc.). In any case, ParkingEye's witness statements have been exposed asphotocopy templates from clients who may well have no knowledge of anyindividual parking event and the signatory may never even have seen thecontract.
2) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is Pay and Display and payment was made at £1.20 for one hoursparking. Having received the Notice in the post I checked the signage and itseems that up to 24 hours parking would have cost £8 so the parking chargenotice of £85 for the additional 22 minutes seems to be no genuine pre-estimateof loss but a punishment or fine that ParkingEye are not lawfully allowed toimpose and is not recoverable in contract law (as found by MrRecorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of CivilEnforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' andas such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidateddamages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, areasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even lossof retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented fromparking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recallthat there was no shortage of spaces on arrival and departure of the car park.
Given that ParkingEye charge the same for a 22 minute overstay as they wouldfor a 24 hour overstay, it is clear that there has been no regard paid toestablishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by thisincident in this car park.
The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge foran alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from theincident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option butto show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not somesubsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devisedafterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):
The BritishParking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay isfor a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on thegenuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''
It is plain for all to see that this charge could neverbe described as a pre-estimate of loss and therefore ParkingEye fail infollowing the most basic of requirements set out in the British ParkingAssociations operating requirements. In my opinion this PCN could be cancelledon these grounds alone.
3) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the ANPR system. I requirethat ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the camerasat this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with thetimer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracyof the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because theentirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicleentering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator mustproduce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (ifat all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the courtloss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissedwhen the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawedbecause the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had beencalled into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye toshow evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case ofmy vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remoteserver added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and donot have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proofthat the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operatorappears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so"live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronisedtime stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with anaccurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from thecameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as theevidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timedphotos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary and to show how thesecamera timings are synchronised with the pay and display machine.
I request that my appeal is allowed.
Yours faithfully,
Mxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (registered owner)
just wanted to say a thank you to all those that contribute to these parking threads. My wife and I have just had a few months of fun and games with parking eye and we have just won the case. Here is our final letter that won for us just incase it can help anyone else. Thanks again
Re:ParkingEye PCN, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Verification Code xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge fromParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for theparking charge:
1) No standing or authority topursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land (PavilionSquare, Scarborough), so they have no standing to make contracts with driversin their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In theabsence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from thelandowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at courtlevel. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statementso I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend thatParkingEye merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant)signs and to post out parking charge notices as a deterrent. A commercial siteagent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in theirown right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Codeof Practice.
I therefore ask ParkingEye to provide proof to POPLA and myself with anunredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye and thelandowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allowsthis Operator to make contracts with drivers themselves and provides them withfull authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court intheir own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that acontract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of thecontract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of theserestrictions and charges, set amounts to charge for each stated contravention,etc.). In any case, ParkingEye's witness statements have been exposed asphotocopy templates from clients who may well have no knowledge of anyindividual parking event and the signatory may never even have seen thecontract.
2) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is Pay and Display and payment was made at £1.20 for one hoursparking. Having received the Notice in the post I checked the signage and itseems that up to 24 hours parking would have cost £8 so the parking chargenotice of £85 for the additional 22 minutes seems to be no genuine pre-estimateof loss but a punishment or fine that ParkingEye are not lawfully allowed toimpose and is not recoverable in contract law (as found by MrRecorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of CivilEnforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' andas such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidateddamages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, areasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even lossof retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented fromparking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recallthat there was no shortage of spaces on arrival and departure of the car park.
Given that ParkingEye charge the same for a 22 minute overstay as they wouldfor a 24 hour overstay, it is clear that there has been no regard paid toestablishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by thisincident in this car park.
The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge foran alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from theincident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option butto show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not somesubsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devisedafterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):
The BritishParking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay isfor a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on thegenuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''
It is plain for all to see that this charge could neverbe described as a pre-estimate of loss and therefore ParkingEye fail infollowing the most basic of requirements set out in the British ParkingAssociations operating requirements. In my opinion this PCN could be cancelledon these grounds alone.
3) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the ANPR system. I requirethat ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the camerasat this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with thetimer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracyof the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because theentirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicleentering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator mustproduce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (ifat all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the courtloss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissedwhen the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawedbecause the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had beencalled into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye toshow evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case ofmy vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remoteserver added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and donot have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proofthat the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operatorappears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so"live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronisedtime stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with anaccurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from thecameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as theevidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timedphotos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary and to show how thesecamera timings are synchronised with the pay and display machine.
I request that my appeal is allowed.
Yours faithfully,
Mxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (registered owner)
0
Comments
-
Brilliantly done and congrats for the using the Threads so well.
The many experts on here will be so heartened and it encourages people who are unsure and frightened by these scumpanies.
Do post the decision if you can. It helps the Forum and c-m will be racing[like my beloved ABs currently, magnificently pulverising Australia at Eden Park]to add it to the appropriate Thread.
Happy Bank Holiday now.CAP[UK]for FREE EXPERT DEBT &BUDGET HELP:
01274 760721, freephone0800 328 0006'People don't want much. They want: "Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."
Norman Kirk, NZLP- Prime Minister, 1972
***JE SUIS CHARLIE***
'It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere' François-Marie AROUET
0 -
Yes the actual decision would be good, although I guess they did not contest it as is their usual stance at the moment.Newbie thread: go to the top of this page and find these words: Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Click on words Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking. Newbie thread is the first post. Blue New Thread button is just above it to left.0
-
Hi, yes dee140157 you are right, they did not send any evidence in to POPLA which leads me to believe that at least one of the items we challenged was correct(maybe all ). I think they must just work on making enough money out of the people who dont appeal. Keep up the good work everyone.0
-
As PE have wasted your time, and no doubt misrepresented their ability to issue such penalties, a complaint to Trading Standards should be made.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards