Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 10th Oct 16, 8:23 PM
    • 20Posts
    • 5Thanks
    PGHarper
    ParkingEye at Portishead Marina Quays
    • #1
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:23 PM
    ParkingEye at Portishead Marina Quays 10th Oct 16 at 8:23 PM
    Can someone read over my POPLA appeal for my PCN.

    I parked in this car park whilst the family had a short walk around the quay, my sons were pokemon hunting! I read the terms when parking and there was a 15 minute free period, so we took advantage of this. I returned to the car and drove nearer to the exit to pick everyone up, but they were watching a boat go through the lock. We then drove off.

    I was not parked in a bay for more than 15 minutes, but I received a PCN as the car park uses ANPR. I had no idea about this when I was in the car park! According to the PCN we were there for 31 minutes. Having read around the threads I appreciate this is still one minute over the grace period.

    Any help is much appreciated.
Page 1
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Oct 16, 8:28 PM
    • 5,395 Posts
    • 4,932 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #2
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:28 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:28 PM
    did they allow you 10 mins grace period at the start to read the signage , and 10 mins + grace to vacate the land?


    15 mins +10 mins + 10 mins = 35 mins between entering and exiting past the ANPR cameras
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 8:37 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,414 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:37 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:37 PM
    First of all, Portishead Marina Quays may well be within Port/Harbour Bylaws which helps you to appeal later at POPLA stage, as long as no-one says who was driving.

    Read the NEWBIES FAQs thread. If you have not appealed already, use the template BPA appeal to get to POPLA stage, submit online as the registered keeper (NOT DRIVER).

    Was the PCN sent within 14 days and does it have wording about the POFA 2012 and keeper liability after 29 days??
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-10-2016 at 8:53 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Oct 16, 8:48 PM
    • 5,395 Posts
    • 4,932 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:48 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:48 PM
    Bristol City Docks byelaws


    OP read http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5393453




    NOTE: all cases where land is covered by bylaws and the PPC are holding people due to POFa are on hold with POPLA, is there a sentence stating that they are using POpLa ?
    Last edited by pappa golf; 10-10-2016 at 8:50 PM.
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 10th Oct 16, 8:55 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    PGHarper
    • #5
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:55 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Oct 16, 8:55 PM
    Date of event 2/8/16
    Date issued 6/8/16
    Date received 12/8/16
    So I don't think I can fight that.

    POFA 2012 and keeper liability are both included

    With regards to grace period, no they didn't give that allowance. I have just read TLW_18's post and need to write that into my appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 9:01 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,414 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 10th Oct 16, 9:01 PM
    • #6
    • 10th Oct 16, 9:01 PM
    So I don't think I can fight that.
    But you can (it seems) argue no keeper liability because it is not relevant land. Search the forum for 'relevant land POPLA' and see examples written recently.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Oct 16, 9:05 PM
    • 5,395 Posts
    • 4,932 Thanks
    pappa golf
    • #7
    • 10th Oct 16, 9:05 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Oct 16, 9:05 PM
    press the bylaw side and no contract , the OP in that other post made a good rebulal , and won
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 10th Oct 16, 10:19 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    PGHarper
    • #8
    • 10th Oct 16, 10:19 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Oct 16, 10:19 PM
    Here is my first draft at a POPLA appeal. Lots of thanks to tlw_18 as her appeal was in an adjacent car park. I guess I will get a similar response from PE.

    Any advice is welcome.

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    The vehicle above was recorded entering the Portishead Quays Marina on the xxxxxxx by APNR.
    I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below. I would graciously ask that all points are taken into consideration when making your judgement.

    1. Inadequate signage/ No contract between driver and the creditor
    2. No Keeper Liability - Bristol Bye Laws
    3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    5. Inadequacy of ANPR camera
    6. The car park signage failed notify the driver that ParkingEye intended to exercise its rights under POFA
    7. ParkingEye Ltd.’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA


    1. Inadequate signage/No contract between driver and the creditor

    The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye Ltd and the driver. I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B.
    Following the receipt of the charge, I as the registered owner have personally visited the site in question, and the signage at this car park especially at the entrance is inadequate. The signage advertises/announces the management company’s logo/banner, the facilities are listed including car parking. The signage however, is at a point where traffic is meeting and the drivers’ attention would be on vehicles approaching. At the physical entrance to the car park, there is no signage stating the contract or the method of charging customers. It is therefore possible for drivers to enter the car park without realising that it is a privately managed car park. (Please see attached photographic images for signage at the entrance of the car park)

    Under Section B 18.2 Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states:

    ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B.’

    It therefore follows that due to inadequate & insufficient signage that the contract between the driver & the creditor has not been established.

    2. No Keeper Liability - Bristol Bye Laws

    Portishead Quays Marina fails to meet the definition of 'relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) that might otherwise have enabled you to pursue this matter with myself (the registered keeper). ParkingEye Ltd have issued a defective Notice citing an Act which does not apply at this particular site, to attempt to claim an unenforceable charge from the keeper (myself).

    Indeed, and as ParkingEye Ltd are already fully aware, no keeper liability can apply at all, due to the BRISTOL CITY DOCKS BYE-LAWS (2009)
    which can be found at .bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33656/city-docks-byelaws.pdf/4848ef7d-139d-4ed5-9387-f3173a72e604 (the byelaws), taking precedence and rendering this land outwith POFA and outwith 'registered keeper liability'. I refer you to Part 1, section 3 which states that Portishead Pier Estate is an area to which the byelaws apply.

    POFA 2012 is quite clear on this:

    3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than
    (a) A highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
    (b) A parking place, which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    (c) Any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

    As Portishead Quays Marina and the surrounding port is covered by bye-laws (statutory control) it clearly falls under 3(c) and is therefore exempt from POFA 2012.

    For ParkingEye Ltd to claim in their standard letters that they have the right to 'registered keeper liability' under POFA when that right is simply not available on land specifically covered by local Byelaws, is a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. If ParkingEye Ltd contend otherwise then I expect them forthwith to provide me with contemporaneous and compelling documentary evidence from the landowner/client in possession of this site, or maps showing where the Bylaws cease to apply around Portishead Quays Marina. If ParkingEye Ltd fails to supply this information I will ask Bristol City Council and Trading Standards to investigate your conduct and prosecute you.

    The byelaws make it very clear (at Part V, paragraph 68) that the penalties for parking on the land designated is solely in the gift of the Criminal Courts and as such ParkingEye Ltd have no standing whatsoever to enforce civil parking charges or parking systems. Additionally, the byelaws also make utterly transparent that the Bristol City Docks bye laws to which they apply includes the Portishead Quays Marina area.

    3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss

    The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. ParkingEye Ltd must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so ParkingEye Ltd have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6, which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

    ParkingEye Ltd cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe ParkingEye Ltd are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown ParkingEye Ltd supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to appeal point 4 below.

    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers

    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing or authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put ParkingEye Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye Ltd and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye Ltd.

    5. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera

    ParkingEye Ltd is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require ParkingEye Ltd to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye Ltd was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    Furthermore, as described in the BPA Code of Practice under paragraph 21.1:

    “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

    Additionally, expanding from point 1 above, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    Considering the observations made in point 2 (inadequate and non-compliant signage) above, I argue that Parking Eye has failed to meet the minimum standards set out in sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. While the available sign advises that the “car park (is) monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras” for, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice nor is it therefore “easy to understand”, as required under Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    I would also point out that on the pictures provided of the vehicle on the PCN that it is impossible to tell where the first picture was taken as it is pitch black in the photo on the PCN. The only legible thing you can see is the number plate. So this casts doubt on the actual time spent within the car park, if at all, because there are NO pictures showing the car actually in THIS car park boundary/having passed any signage at all. If photos are taken just outside the car park then it is perfectly feasible that the driver might have stopped there to try to read any entrance signs or look for a barrier or arrows on where to proceed. If so then the cameras are set in an unfair position and will be starting the clock at a time when the car should not be timed at all.


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

    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

    Paragraph 68 (1): a trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    Paragraph 68 (2): a consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    Paragraph 69 (1): if a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    Also, Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. This paragraph also instructs operators that signs at the car park must tell drivers that they are using this technology and what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    I have good reason to believe that the car park signs did not clearly advise the driver that ParkingEye Ltd intended to use the data captured by its ANPR cameras as a means to pursue the vehicle’s keeper under POFA for parking charges in the event that they remained unpaid by the driver.

    The establishment of keeper liability under POFA is not automatic; it is conditional upon the operator a) 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 Ltd intended to use POFA to claim keeper liability, the driver (in accordance with their rights under Paragraph 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2015) was reasonably entitled to conclude that ParkingEye Ltd did not intend to use POFA to pursue keeper liability.

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

    ParkingEye Ltd failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully met all of POFA’s strict requirements, particularly Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4. Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The Notice to Keeper specified the times which ParkingEye Ltd alleged that the vehicle arrived and departed (as recorded by ANPR camera images). These times are clearly not the same as the times between which the vehicle was alleged to have been parked



    This concludes my appeal and I respectfully request that my appeal be allowed.

    Yours Faithfully,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 10:23 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,414 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 10th Oct 16, 10:23 PM
    • #9
    • 10th Oct 16, 10:23 PM
    No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    That tells us the example you found is too old. That point goes nowhere and you will lose, following ParkingEye v Beavis in Nov 2015.

    Have another look for 'not relevant land' POPLA appeals...there was a good NCP version yesterday on here I seem to recall. Then tweak it by changing 'NCP' to 'ParkingEye' and trying to use the template points shown in the top thread 'POPLA Decisions' penultimate page, the ones I posted there last month.

    Show us what that then looks like.

    Chuck away the one above completely!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Oct 16, 10:25 PM
    • 5,395 Posts
    • 4,932 Thanks
    pappa golf
    Here is my first draft at a POPLA appeal. Lots of thanks to tlw_18 as her appeal was in an adjacent car park. I guess I will get a similar response from PE.

    Any advice is welcome.

    Dear POPLA Assessor,


    No Keeper Liability - Bristol Bye Laws


    The vehicle above was recorded entering the Portishead Quays Marina on the xxxxxxx by APNR.
    I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below. I would graciously ask that all points are taken into consideration when making your judgement.

    1. Inadequate signage/ No contract between driver and the creditor
    2. No Keeper Liability - Bristol Bye Laws
    3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    5. Inadequacy of ANPR camera
    6. The car park signage failed notify the driver that ParkingEye intended to exercise its rights under POFA
    7. ParkingEye Ltd.’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA


    1. Inadequate signage/No contract between driver and the creditor

    The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye Ltd and the driver. I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B.
    Following the receipt of the charge, I as the registered owner have personally visited the site in question, and the signage at this car park especially at the entrance is inadequate. The signage advertises/announces the management company’s logo/banner, the facilities are listed including car parking. The signage however, is at a point where traffic is meeting and the drivers’ attention would be on vehicles approaching. At the physical entrance to the car park, there is no signage stating the contract or the method of charging customers. It is therefore possible for drivers to enter the car park without realising that it is a privately managed car park. (Please see attached photographic images for signage at the entrance of the car park)

    Under Section B 18.2 Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states:

    ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B.’

    It therefore follows that due to inadequate & insufficient signage that the contract between the driver & the creditor has not been established.

    2. No Keeper Liability - Bristol Bye Laws

    Portishead Quays Marina fails to meet the definition of 'relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) that might otherwise have enabled you to pursue this matter with myself (the registered keeper). ParkingEye Ltd have issued a defective Notice citing an Act which does not apply at this particular site, to attempt to claim an unenforceable charge from the keeper (myself).

    Indeed, and as ParkingEye Ltd are already fully aware, no keeper liability can apply at all, due to the BRISTOL CITY DOCKS BYE-LAWS (2009)
    which can be found at .bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33656/city-docks-byelaws.pdf/4848ef7d-139d-4ed5-9387-f3173a72e604 (the byelaws), taking precedence and rendering this land outwith POFA and outwith 'registered keeper liability'. I refer you to Part 1, section 3 which states that Portishead Pier Estate is an area to which the byelaws apply.

    POFA 2012 is quite clear on this:

    3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than
    (a) A highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
    (b) A parking place, which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    (c) Any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

    As Portishead Quays Marina and the surrounding port is covered by bye-laws (statutory control) it clearly falls under 3(c) and is therefore exempt from POFA 2012.

    For ParkingEye Ltd to claim in their standard letters that they have the right to 'registered keeper liability' under POFA when that right is simply not available on land specifically covered by local Byelaws, is a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. If ParkingEye Ltd contend otherwise then I expect them forthwith to provide me with contemporaneous and compelling documentary evidence from the landowner/client in possession of this site, or maps showing where the Bylaws cease to apply around Portishead Quays Marina. If ParkingEye Ltd fails to supply this information I will ask Bristol City Council and Trading Standards to investigate your conduct and prosecute you.

    The byelaws make it very clear (at Part V, paragraph 68) that the penalties for parking on the land designated is solely in the gift of the Criminal Courts and as such ParkingEye Ltd have no standing whatsoever to enforce civil parking charges or parking systems. Additionally, the byelaws also make utterly transparent that the Bristol City Docks bye laws to which they apply includes the Portishead Quays Marina area.

    3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss

    The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. ParkingEye Ltd must therefore be required to explain their 'charge' by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so ParkingEye Ltd have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6, which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

    ParkingEye Ltd cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe ParkingEye Ltd are likely to be paid by their client - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown ParkingEye Ltd supply and must be shown in the contract, which leads me to appeal point 4 below.

    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers

    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing or authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put ParkingEye Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye Ltd and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye Ltd.

    5. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera

    ParkingEye Ltd is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require ParkingEye Ltd to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye Ltd was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    Furthermore, as described in the BPA Code of Practice under paragraph 21.1:

    “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

    Additionally, expanding from point 1 above, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    Considering the observations made in point 2 (inadequate and non-compliant signage) above, I argue that Parking Eye has failed to meet the minimum standards set out in sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. While the available sign advises that the “car park (is) monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras” for, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice nor is it therefore “easy to understand”, as required under Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    I would also point out that on the pictures provided of the vehicle on the PCN that it is impossible to tell where the first picture was taken as it is pitch black in the photo on the PCN. The only legible thing you can see is the number plate. So this casts doubt on the actual time spent within the car park, if at all, because there are NO pictures showing the car actually in THIS car park boundary/having passed any signage at all. If photos are taken just outside the car park then it is perfectly feasible that the driver might have stopped there to try to read any entrance signs or look for a barrier or arrows on where to proceed. If so then the cameras are set in an unfair position and will be starting the clock at a time when the car should not be timed at all.


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

    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

    Paragraph 68 (1): a trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    Paragraph 68 (2): a consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    Paragraph 69 (1): if a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    Also, Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. This paragraph also instructs operators that signs at the car park must tell drivers that they are using this technology and what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    I have good reason to believe that the car park signs did not clearly advise the driver that ParkingEye Ltd intended to use the data captured by its ANPR cameras as a means to pursue the vehicle’s keeper under POFA for parking charges in the event that they remained unpaid by the driver.

    The establishment of keeper liability under POFA is not automatic; it is conditional upon the operator a) 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 Ltd intended to use POFA to claim keeper liability, the driver (in accordance with their rights under Paragraph 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2015) was reasonably entitled to conclude that ParkingEye Ltd did not intend to use POFA to pursue keeper liability.

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

    ParkingEye Ltd failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully met all of POFA’s strict requirements, particularly Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4. Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The Notice to Keeper specified the times which ParkingEye Ltd alleged that the vehicle arrived and departed (as recorded by ANPR camera images). These times are clearly not the same as the times between which the vehicle was alleged to have been parked



    This concludes my appeal and I respectfully request that my appeal be allowed.

    Yours Faithfully,
    Originally posted by PGHarper

    see edit above
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 10th Oct 16, 11:04 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    PGHarper
    Thanks Coupon-mad

    With regard to tweaks, am I just taking out GPEOL and putting in your revision in place of it, or the long version by mixu

    "
    The operator makes much of Beavis case. They are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different, essentially that case was the abuse of a free time limited public car park where signage could be used to create a contract.

    In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately, there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 fine is a conscionable amount to be charged for the simple problem of a permit that is agreed to be valid not being entirely visible to the satisfaction of a parking warden.

    Therefore, in this case GPEOL should still apply and any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair.

    In this case the specific question is whether a reasonable person would agree to a term where parking in a place that they paid a significant rent for the privilege would also accept a further liability in the case of a potentially misplaced permit, I would suggest that a court would not accept that £100 was a reasonable amount (as opposed to a charge for the circumstances where a genuinely unauthorised vehicle was using the same land and could be bound by appropriately signed conditions) and certainly does not in any way reflect the costs incurred in establishing that the car was indeed authorised."
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 10th Oct 16, 11:09 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    PGHarper
    Pappa golf

    I take it from your edit, that you think I should lead with that arguement! If I take out no GPEOL and replace later with a newer version, will that be better?
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Oct 16, 11:12 PM
    • 5,395 Posts
    • 4,932 Thanks
    pappa golf
    I missed the bit where you said you paid to park , or the bit where you had a permit


    your beef is that the land comes under bylaws and PE have no rights to use POFa , also they have failed to meet the BPA code of practice on grace periods


    "3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park,


    at the moment you only have a ticket , you have not got evidence from PE , so why fight what might not be there?

    fight the FACTS
    Last edited by pappa golf; 10-10-2016 at 11:15 PM.
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 10th Oct 16, 11:15 PM
    • 458 Posts
    • 1,177 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Grace periods will be an important part of your submission to POPLA: here’s some suggested wording:

    "The Operator did not allow the reasonable grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice.

    With regard to grace periods, the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice states the following:

    Paragraph 13.2: you should allow the driver a reasonable “grace period” in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

    Paragraph 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.


    Although Paragraph 13.2 does not specify what constitutes a “reasonable grace period” for a motorist to decide whether to stay or go, this grace period begins when the vehicle passes the ANPR camera at the car park entrance and must cover:

    a) the time to drive into the car park and locate a parking space
    b) the time to manoeuvre the vehicle into the parking space (once a space has been located)
    c) the time for a driver to locate and walk to the nearest car park sign to the parking space
    d) the time taken to read and understand all of the conditions contained on the car park sign; this includes having to read all of the “small print” on the sign.

    The BPA Code of Practice considers it reasonable to apply a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes for a motorist to leave the car park at the end of the parking contract (i.e. for the motorist to get into their vehicle, manoeuvre out of the parking space and drive out of the car park).

    Given that more processes are involved in the period before the parking contract is formed (e.g. finding a parking space, locating a car park sign and then reading and understanding the terms on the sign), it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period before the establishment of the parking contact must be more than the minimum of the 10 minutes specified by the BPA Code of Practice as the grace period after the parking contract has ended.


    [Insert reference to previous POPLA determinations on Grace Periods including this useful case in which the POPLA assessor indicated that at least 11 minutes' grace period was reasonable before the beginning of the "parking contract": http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=70455570&postcount=2099 ]

    Thus the overall reasonable grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice must be more than 20 minutes.

    The Operator’s terms and conditions at this car park allow for 15 minutes’ free parking yet the PCN records a period of just 31 minutes between my vehicle entering and leaving the car park. Given that the additional period of 16 minutes is well within the overall minimum reasonable grace period required by the BPA Code of Practice, POPLA may reasonably determine this PCN as being invalid."



    PG - with regard to the relevant land question, I'm not convinced that parking at Portishead Quays is actually covered under the Bristol City Docks Byelaws; any reference to parking seems to be limited only to the "Bristol City Dock Estate" as opposed to the "Portishead Pier Estate". However, there's no harm chucking it in to the appeal - the onus is on ParkingEye to rebut the point about non-relevant land (which their template evidence pack will not do).
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 10-10-2016 at 11:21 PM.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Oct 16, 11:19 PM
    • 5,395 Posts
    • 4,932 Thanks
    pappa golf
    edna this is the one where there contract was out of date (earlier this year)
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 10th Oct 16, 11:30 PM
    • 458 Posts
    • 1,177 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Good point PG.

    No evidence of landholder authority should be high on the list of appeal points - especially if the same contract covers the private residential parking zone (as per tlw_18's case from earlier this year) and this P & D car park as in PGHarper's case.
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 10th Oct 16, 11:30 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    PGHarper
    Oh my head hurts!!!

    Thanks for the help everyone.
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 10th Oct 16, 11:47 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    PGHarper
    PG,

    I cant see a reference for that case. Am I allowed to say 'PE v her surname 2016' ?
    Last edited by PGHarper; 11-10-2016 at 3:26 PM. Reason: mistake in text
    • PGHarper
    • By PGHarper 11th Oct 16, 12:15 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    PGHarper
    Here are my tweaks

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    The vehicle above was recorded entering the Portishead Quays Marina on the 02 AUG 2016 by APNR.
    I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing against the parking charge above. I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below. I would graciously ask that all points are taken into consideration when making your judgement.


    1. No Keeper Liability - Bristol Bye Laws
    2. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
    3. Inadequate signage/ No contract between driver and the creditor
    4. The Operator did not allow the reasonable grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice.
    5. Inadequacy of ANPR camera
    6. The car park signage failed notify the driver that ParkingEye intended to exercise its rights under POFA
    7. ParkingEye Ltd.’s Notice to Keeper failed to meet the strict requirements of POFA
    8. No Legitimate Interest - Beavis case not relevant to a tariff car park.


    1. No Keeper Liability - Bristol Bye Laws, not relevant land

    Portishead Quays Marina fails to meet the definition of 'relevant land' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) that might otherwise have enabled you to pursue this matter with myself (the registered keeper). ParkingEye Ltd have issued a defective Notice citing an Act which does not apply at this particular site, to attempt to claim an unenforceable charge from the keeper (myself).

    Indeed, and as ParkingEye Ltd are already fully aware, no keeper liability can apply at all, due to the BRISTOL CITY DOCKS BYE-LAWS (2009)
    which can be found at .bristol.gov.uk/documents/20182/33656/city-docks-byelaws.pdf/4848ef7d-139d-4ed5-9387-f3173a72e604 (the byelaws), taking precedence and rendering this land outwith POFA and outwith 'registered keeper liability'. I refer you to Part 1, section 3 which states that Portishead Pier Estate is an area to which the byelaws apply.

    POFA 2012 is quite clear on this:

    3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than
    (a) A highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
    (b) A parking place, which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    (c) Any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

    As Portishead Quays Marina and the surrounding port is covered by bye-laws (statutory control) it clearly falls under 3(c) and is therefore exempt from POFA 2012.

    For ParkingEye Ltd to claim in their standard letters that they have the right to 'registered keeper liability' under POFA when that right is simply not available on land specifically covered by local Byelaws, is a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. If ParkingEye Ltd contend otherwise then I expect them forthwith to provide me with contemporaneous and compelling documentary evidence from the landowner/client in possession of this site, or maps showing where the Bylaws cease to apply around Portishead Quays Marina. If ParkingEye Ltd fails to supply this information I will ask Bristol City Council and Trading Standards to investigate your conduct and prosecute you.

    The byelaws make it very clear (at Part V, paragraph 68) that the penalties for parking on the land designated is solely in the gift of the Criminal Courts and as such ParkingEye Ltd have no standing whatsoever to enforce civil parking charges or parking systems. Additionally, the byelaws also make utterly transparent that the Bristol City Docks bye laws to which they apply includes the Portishead Quays Marina area.

    2. No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers

    I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye Ltd must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing or authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put ParkingEye Ltd to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye Ltd and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye Ltd.

    In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

    3. Inadequate signage/No contract between driver and the creditor

    The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye Ltd and the driver. I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B.
    Following the receipt of the charge, I as the registered owner have personally visited the site in question, and the signage at this car park especially at the entrance is inadequate. The signage advertises/announces the management company’s logo/banner, the facilities are listed including car parking. The signage however, is at a point where traffic is meeting and the drivers’ attention would be on vehicles approaching. At the physical entrance to the car park, there is no signage stating the contract or the method of charging customers. It is therefore possible for drivers to enter the car park without realising that it is a privately managed car park. (Please see attached photographic images for signage at the entrance of the car park)

    Under Section B 18.2 Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states:

    ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B.’

    It therefore follows that due to inadequate & insufficient signage that the contract between the driver & the creditor has not been established.

    4. The Operator did not allow the reasonable grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice.

    With regard to grace periods, the British Parking Association Ltd (“BPA”) Code of Practice states the following:

    Paragraph 13.2: you should allow the driver a reasonable “grace period” in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.

    Paragraph 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.

    Although Paragraph 13.2 does not specify what constitutes a “reasonable grace period” for a motorist to decide whether to stay or go, this grace period begins when the vehicle passes the ANPR camera at the car park entrance and must cover:

    a) the time to drive into the car park and locate a parking space
    b) the time to manoeuvre the vehicle into the parking space (once a space has been located)
    c) the time for a driver to locate and walk to the nearest car park sign to the parking space
    d) the time taken to read and understand all of the conditions contained on the car park sign; this includes having to read all of the “small print” on the sign.

    The BPA Code of Practice considers it reasonable to apply a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes for a motorist to leave the car park at the end of the parking contract (i.e. for the motorist to get into their vehicle, manoeuvre out of the parking space and drive out of the car park).

    Given that more processes are involved in the period before the parking contract is formed (e.g. finding a parking space, locating a car park sign and then reading and understanding the terms on the sign), it is reasonable to conclude that the grace period before the establishment of the parking contact must be more than the minimum of the 10 minutes specified by the BPA Code of Practice as the grace period after the parking contract has ended.

    Thus the overall reasonable grace period required under the BPA Code of Practice must be more than 20 minutes.

    The Operator’s terms and conditions at this car park allow for 15 minutes’ free parking yet the PCN records a period of just 31 minutes between my vehicle entering and leaving the car park. Given that the additional period of 16 minutes is well within the overall minimum reasonable grace period required by the BPA Code of Practice, POPLA may reasonably determine this PCN as being invalid."

    5. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera

    ParkingEye Ltd is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in the BPA Code of Practice that states under paragraph 21.3, parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I question the entire reliability of the system and require ParkingEye Ltd to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye Ltd was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

    Furthermore, as described in the BPA Code of Practice under paragraph 21.1:

    “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

    Additionally, expanding from point 1 above, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

    Considering the observations made in point 2 (inadequate and non-compliant signage) above, I argue that Parking Eye has failed to meet the minimum standards set out in sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. While the available sign advises that the “car park (is) monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras” for, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice nor is it therefore “easy to understand”, as required under Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    I would also point out that on the pictures provided of the vehicle on the PCN that it is impossible to tell where the first picture was taken as it is pitch black in the photo on the PCN. The only legible thing you can see is the number plate. So this casts doubt on the actual time spent within the car park, if at all, because there are NO pictures showing the car actually in THIS car park boundary/having passed any signage at all. If photos are taken just outside the car park then it is perfectly feasible that the driver might have stopped there to try to read any entrance signs or look for a barrier or arrows on where to proceed. If so then the cameras are set in an unfair position and will be starting the clock at a time when the car should not be timed at all.


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

    In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including;

    Paragraph 68 (1): a trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.

    Paragraph 68 (2): a consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    Paragraph 69 (1): if a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    Also, Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. This paragraph also instructs operators that signs at the car park must tell drivers that they are using this technology and what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

    I have good reason to believe that the car park signs did not clearly advise the driver that ParkingEye Ltd intended to use the data captured by its ANPR cameras as a means to pursue the vehicle’s keeper under POFA for parking charges in the event that they remained unpaid by the driver.

    The establishment of keeper liability under POFA is not automatic; it is conditional upon the operator a) 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 Ltd intended to use POFA to claim keeper liability, the driver (in accordance with their rights under Paragraph 69 of the Consumer Protection Act 2015) was reasonably entitled to conclude that ParkingEye Ltd did not intend to use POFA to pursue keeper liability.

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

    ParkingEye Ltd failed to deliver a Notice to Keeper that fully met all of POFA’s strict requirements, particularly Paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4. Contrary to the requirements of Paragraph 9(2)(a), the Notice to Keeper did not specify the period of parking to which the notice relates. The Notice to Keeper specified the times which ParkingEye Ltd alleged that the vehicle arrived and departed (as recorded by ANPR camera images). These times are clearly not the same as the times between which the vehicle was alleged to have been parked

    8. No Legitimate Interest - Beavis case not relevant to a tariff car park.

    This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgment because it is a contractual charge from a pay and display car park; an offer of parking for a set sum was made and a 15 minute free period was chosen. This makes plain that the sum of £100 being demanded is nothing other than a penalty clause designed to profit from inadvertent errors and is consequently unenforceable.

    The charge is for an alleged (but denied) breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified that this non-landowning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages. However, no such GPEOL or justification can apply here.

    Unlike in Beavis, it is confidently argued that this charge (£100) is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and as this was a paid parking site that can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis. If ParkingEye Ltd believe that no valid payment choice was made their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. If ParkingEye Ltd believes their charge is a genuine pre-estimate of their loss it is demanded they produce a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this has been calculated.

    In addition, the sum claimed cannot be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, as any contractual breach attracts the exact same apparent amount of loss, whatever the alleged breach of contract may be. If the sum claimed were a genuine pre-estimate of loss, it follows that the loss cannot be £60 on days 1 to 14, then £100 thereafter. This is clearly an arbitrary sum invented by the Operator.

    However there can be no Beavis case comparison at all because there is no legitimate interest in pursuing a driver for £100 when ParkingEye Ltd know full well that the driver made a valid choice.

    This concludes my appeal and I respectfully request that my appeal be allowed.
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 11th Oct 16, 12:27 AM
    • 5,395 Posts
    • 4,932 Thanks
    pappa golf
    have parking eye mentioned bevis in any of their letters?
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,119Posts Today

5,457Users online

Martin's Twitter