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
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 6th Feb 17, 4:34 PM
    • 54Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Pesky Parking Eye - Should I or Shouldnt I pay?
    • #1
    • 6th Feb 17, 4:34 PM
    Pesky Parking Eye - Should I or Shouldnt I pay? 6th Feb 17 at 4:34 PM
    Parking Eye Charge

    I just wanted to ask you guys for a bit of help if possible.

    My wife has just received a PCN by Parking Eye for parking in a car park space by the Red Jet Ferry in Southampton.

    The PCN shows 2 images of our car arriving and departing.

    The fine is for £100 however, it would be reduced to £60 if we pay in 14 days.

    I will go with whatever you guys say as I trust you implicitly, if you say pay I will do it. If you say appeal I will do that.

    Thanks for reading.
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 06-02-2017 at 6:21 PM.
Page 2
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th Mar 17, 5:10 PM
    • 39,203 Posts
    • 78,323 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I would change appeal point 1 title from Statutory Control to Non-relevant land where Byelaws apply, or something similar to show the assesor immediately that this is a Byelaw case.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th Mar 17, 5:11 PM
    • 39,203 Posts
    • 78,323 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Any photos of signage, charts, maps etc that you are relying on to support your appeal. Insert it as an 'Image' in Word which should then show under the appropriate appeal paragraph.

    If you're referencing a large block of text (say a court decision), then leave that as a basic internet link.

    HTH
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    You could however quote the salient points from that link.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 15th Mar 17, 6:16 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Hi Thanks for the help and advice. I think I need to take this slowly, at first I have copied the text to word and then edited a few bits and added the images and links.

    Can you please have a look at the whole appeal that I have put in word format and advise what sections I need to change in order for it to be relevant to me.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/fci60mzrtbrihi8/Parking%20Charge%20Notice.docx?dl=0

    For example the alleged event may not have happened at midnight instead it may have been in the afternoon, allegedly somebody may not have purchased a ticket or got out of the car because they may have been waiting for someone who missed the bloomin ferry. Allegedly, the said person may not have seen any signs saying that they were being recorded.

    I have brain ache reading popla appeals I am in a muddle

    Edit - Maybe take the about about midnight out, not relevant?
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 15-03-2017 at 6:19 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 7:53 PM
    • 46,835 Posts
    • 60,149 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's a good POPLA appeal to base yours on.

    Just change details such as the dates of the Notice posted to you (that example says July and August) and remove the pic of the sign at midnight and any mention of darkness, if it was actually daylight.

    Replace any sentence which describes what the driver did that doesn't suit your case, with the facts like 'the driver may have been waiting for someone who missed the ferry; there were no prominent signs to inform the driver that they were being recorded'.

    It's probably obvious to you what needs changing. The proof reading is down to you; it's a very good example and should win.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 16th Mar 17, 9:21 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    That's a good POPLA appeal to base yours on.

    Just change details such as the dates of the Notice posted to you (that example says July and August) and remove the pic of the sign at midnight and any mention of darkness, if it was actually daylight.

    Replace any sentence which describes what the driver did that doesn't suit your case, with the facts like 'the driver may have been waiting for someone who missed the ferry; there were no prominent signs to inform the driver that they were being recorded'.

    It's probably obvious to you what needs changing. The proof reading is down to you; it's a very good example and should win.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I have now changed bits and pieces and changed the statuory thing to bylaws. Can you please have a look when you have time and advise me how I should put the alleged waiting for someone and them missing the ferry thing. I am not a lawyer and whichever way I write it, it sounds terrible.

    Here is the new link to the revised appeal -

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/nzk6dgns2dvrjyv/Parking%20Charge%20Notice%20revised.docx?dl=0

    Thanks Coupon Mad
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 16th Mar 17, 9:31 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    That's a good POPLA appeal to base yours on.

    Just change details such as the dates of the Notice posted to you (that example says July and August) and remove the pic of the sign at midnight and any mention of darkness, if it was actually daylight.

    Replace any sentence which describes what the driver did that doesn't suit your case, with the facts like 'the driver may have been waiting for someone who missed the ferry; there were no prominent signs to inform the driver that they were being recorded'.

    It's probably obvious to you what needs changing. The proof reading is down to you; it's a very good example and should win.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I have now changed bits and pieces and changed the statuory thing to bylaws.

    Can you please have a look when you have time and advise me WHERE I should put the alleged waiting for someone and them missing the ferry thing please. I am not a lawyer and whichever way I write it, it sounds terrible .thanks in advance

    Here is the new link to the revised appeal -including all the information everyone has advised on this thread. Such as the bylaws and the winning case showing the non relevant land thingy.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/i2wlp7v9qnd1itd/Parking%20Charge%20Notice%20revised.docx?dl=0

    Thanks Coupon Mad & Everyone that is helping me.
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 16-03-2017 at 9:43 PM. Reason: added clarity
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 16th Mar 17, 9:34 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    I would change appeal point 1 title from Statutory Control to Non-relevant land where Byelaws apply, or something similar to show the assesor immediately that this is a Byelaw case.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Hi Fruitcake - Can you please have a scan over the revised document (when you have time) and tell me if the wording is correct under section 1 I have changed 'Statutory control' to 'Non Relevant Land where bylaws apply' however, I am not sure if I need to change anything else. Thank you
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 16-03-2017 at 9:34 PM. Reason: manners
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 12:07 AM
    • 46,835 Posts
    • 60,149 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have now changed bits and pieces and changed the statuory thing to bylaws.

    Can you please have a look when you have time and advise me WHERE I should put the alleged waiting for someone and them missing the ferry thing please. I am not a lawyer and whichever way I write it, it sounds terrible .thanks in advance
    Originally posted by Jason.rangou
    I would leave it out, it's not needed.

    Upload your appeal on the POPLA website under 'OTHER' (only other) and get on with your life!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 17th Mar 17, 5:38 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Revised 17/03/17 - after following fruitcake suggestion
    Before I send it and get on with my life, please can someone take a quick look and tell me if I have put the bit about byelaws in the right place? as this is the main defense I feel.

    I am not expecting to win but it does feel quite good to try though.

    Thanks



    Parking Charge Notice – xxxxxx/xxxxxx
    Issued by ParkingEye
    POPLA Ref: xxxxxxxxxx

    I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice (PCN) sent to myself as registered keeper of a vehicle, in respect of an alleged breach of parking conditions at Southampton Town Quay (short stay) car park on 22nd January 2017 .

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

    1) Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to Non-relevant land where Byelaws apply

    2) No proof that the individual they are pursuing is the driver liable/The operator’s PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    3) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges
    4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
    5) The car park signage failed notify the driver that ParkingEye Ltd intended to exercise its rights under POFA
    6) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    7) The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.




    1 Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to Non-relevant land where Byelaws apply

    Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 states that 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.


    Although ParkingEye’s PCN makes no mention of Southampton Town Quay being subject to statutory control, parking at this site is subject to Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (“the ABP Byelaws”); this location is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012.

    I include with my submission a copy of the ABP Byelaws, drawing POPLA’s attention to Part IV (Goods and Road and Rail Traffic), in particular the terms of Paragraphs 37 and 39 which specifically refer to leaving vehicles unattended (i.e. parking) thereby confirming that parking on the Town Quay land is subject to to Non-relevant land where Byelaws apply

    I also draw POPLA's attention to the map on Page 20 of the ABP Byelaws which confirms that Southampton Town Quay lies within the boundaries of the Port of Southampton for the purpose of the ABP Byelaws. I also include a more detailed ABP map which defines more clearly the boundaries of the Port of Southampton.

    POPLA has previously determined that Southampton Town Quay is not relevant land; I refer you to POPLA case ref.6062356150 29/09/2016
    I can only conclude that the car park is indeed on land under statutory control and cannot be considered ‘relevant land’ for the purposes of PoFA 2012. As the site is not located on ‘relevant land’, the operator is unable to rely on PoFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal”
    Therefore ParkingEye has no lawful right to rely upon POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s keeper.

    2 No proof that the individual they are pursuing is the driver liable/The operator’s PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''


    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    CONT.....
    Last edited by Jason.rangou; 17-03-2017 at 5:42 PM.
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 17th Mar 17, 5:39 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    POFA Para 9(2)(f) states that the Notice to Keeper must

    ‘warn the keeper that if after the period of 28 days […]
    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges […] has not been paid in full, and
    (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
    the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid’.


    As the Parking Charge Notice received in this instance does not include this warning, the operator is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. This is a clear and strict requirement under the relevant legislation that ParkingEye have not complied with and as such cannot rely upon to hold me liable as keeper.


    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''





    3 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 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.

    4 The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car



    park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
    Here is the Town Quay sign:

    Please note, this sign was NOT at the entrance to the car park but some way in, quite high up above a pay machine in the Red zone (permit parking) area. The wording on this sign is crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background, with far too much information for a motorist to take in while driving past, and the wording of the terms and conditions at the bottom of the sign is so small it is virtually illegible. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.


    There are neither full terms nor the sum of the parking charge displayed at the entrance to the site, or in one half of the main car park, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, most signs do not clearly mention the parking charge.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    The terms, where displayed at all, are displayed inadequately, in letters approximately a quarter inch high, with the charge in letters just one inch high:

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:
    http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html
    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just a quarter inch showing the terms and one inch showing the 'charge', placed high on a wall or pole and buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when on a pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it with perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass to be able to read the terms. To read the terms and conditions at all one would need to be at most 10 feet from the sign, but a driver driving past any signs in this car park would be more than 20 feet away.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

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

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established.


    5. 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.

    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 17th Mar 17, 5:40 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    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.

    6. 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,
    7. The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, which breaches the BPA CoP and the CPUTRs due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.
    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.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show any entrance signs and how they would appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 17th Mar 17, 5:53 PM
    • 39,203 Posts
    • 78,323 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to non-relevant land within the meaning of the POFA 2012 and subject to where Byelaws. apply.

    No GPEOL is dead since the Beavis case in 2015.

    Embed images into your appeal rather than use links. That way the assessor is forced to look at them.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 17-03-2017 at 5:57 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 5:55 PM
    • 46,835 Posts
    • 60,149 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What is #6 doing there, two years after ''no GPEOL'' was thrown out?
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 17th Mar 17, 6:33 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to non-relevant land within the meaning of the POFA 2012 and subject to where Byelaws. apply.

    No GPEOL is dead since the Beavis case in 2015.

    Embed images into your appeal rather than use links. That way the assessor is forced to look at them.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    1. Shall I remove 6 then? - I found it on another appeal that someone submitted recently

    2.I have now embedded all the images I can.

    Should I add anything else to the last paragraph in your opinion?
    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 17th Mar 17, 6:34 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    What is #6 doing there, two years after ''no GPEOL'' was thrown out?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    You must understand Coupon-mad I have never done this before I do not know that the GPEOL was thrown out two years ago. I have copied this from another person who submitted their POPLA appeal recently.

    Anything else to add or should I just post to POPLA and resume life : )?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 6:41 PM
    • 46,835 Posts
    • 60,149 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have copied this from another person who submitted their POPLA appeal recently.
    Who used 'no GPEOL' recently on here? Never seen one, we always tell them to take it out. Never mind, as long as you remove it! #5 is old as well, can't have been from a recent one surely? It adds nothing really.

    You can improve your point #3 by using the longer template about the same issue, have a look at this one:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5611231

    HTH
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 17th Mar 17, 6:51 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Who used 'no GPEOL' recently on here? Never seen one, we always tell them to take it out. Never mind, as long as you remove it! #5 is old as well, can't have been from a recent one surely? It adds nothing really.

    You can improve your point #3 by using the longer template about the same issue, have a look at this one:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5611231

    HTH
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Getting there now I have removed point 6 and looked at the link you have given me thank you.

    For point 3 in my appeal I have put -

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


    However, I cannot find any mention of this in the POPLA appeal wall of text from link, I can only assume it's worded differently ?

    Please can you advise where I should be looking?
    ie which point in their submission I should add?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 17, 9:11 PM
    • 46,835 Posts
    • 60,149 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's #4 in his version.] and is more up to date wording than the one you found so far. Read his entire wall of text, it is good (but needed to be better separated in the forum post to make it more easy on the eye).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Jason.rangou
    • By Jason.rangou 20th Mar 17, 5:14 PM
    • 54 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Jason.rangou
    Are we ready to post to POPLA?
    It's #4 in his version.] and is more up to date wording than the one you found so far. Read his entire wall of text, it is good (but needed to be better separated in the forum post to make it more easy on the eye).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi thanks Coupon-mad I am not too good at looking at walls of text and finding info.

    Shall I change my point 3 to all of this then (below)? - And then once I have done that do I have the green light from you to send to POPLA?

    4. ParkingEye have provided no evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator (ParkingEye) is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA code of practice (CoP)) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
    Please see section 7 below regarding the types of vehichle that appear to be allowed to wait in this area without charge. i.e. Taxis etc.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Mar 17, 10:57 PM
    • 46,835 Posts
    • 60,149 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that's the usual template 'no landowner authority' point. Yep, get it submitted as a PDF under 'OTHER'.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

3,851Posts Today

8,174Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @kcbelsham: @MartinSLewis . This Account would have to pay at least 12% to achieve £1 million in 35 years . Any ideas ( think it is impo?

  • Really? The highest interest rate amount for that volume of cash currently is 2%? You'd need an interest rate explo? https://t.co/6YRk1wLdTl

  • Today's Twitter poll: Is it acceptable to take your shirt off and go topless in the street when it's scorching in the UK?

  • Follow Martin