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
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 1:33 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 3Thanks
    mwjn
    Parking Eye PCN
    • #1
    • 15th Sep 17, 1:33 PM
    Parking Eye PCN 15th Sep 17 at 1:33 PM
    Hi All

    I am currently at the stage of appealing via POPLA due to a Non-POFA PCN from Parking Eye

    Could somebody review my POPLA Appeal and update me if I can win via the Non-POFA PCN Issued

    Thanks
    Last edited by mwjn; 15-09-2017 at 2:55 PM. Reason: Add Links to Post
Page 1
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 1:54 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 17, 1:54 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 17, 1:54 PM
    Front Page of the PCN

    i*imgur*com/4kQkYJl.jpg

    Back Page of the PCN

    i*imgur*com/ubQAZ8p.jpg

    I have got a copy of the Rejection Letter from Parking Eye, when appealed to them in the first place to get the POPLA Code, highlighted was that the PCN was Non-POFA but on the rejection letter nothing has been mentioned on POFA
    Last edited by mwjn; 15-09-2017 at 2:46 PM.
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    I used a template from Coupon-Mad

    See Below

    Thanks
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 17, 1:55 PM
    On Each Page Will put on the PCN & POPLA Numbers and save as PDF

    Dear POPLA,
    PCN Number: xxx
    POPLA Verification Code: xxx

    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd.

    As the keeper of the car, but not the driver when the alleged event occurred, I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

    1. ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge
    3. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority


    1.ParkingEye's Parking Charge Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

    To support this claim further the following areas of dispute are raised:

    Right to Claim Unpaid Parking Charges from the Keeper of Vehicle – Schedule 4 Paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
    Conditions that must be met for purposes of Paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) – Paragraph 7 (2) the notice must (b)
    The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the wording used.

    Right to Claim Unpaid Parking Charges from the Keeper of Vehicle – Schedule 4 Paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12.

    The PCN also fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe the unpaid parking charges that they allege were unpaid at the machine.

    Conditions that must be met for purposes of Paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) – Paragraph 7(2) the notice must (b)

    Paragraph 7(2) states:

    ’’The notice must - (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose…and the other facts that made those charges payable…’’

    This NTK stated that -

    ‘’either’’ there was not appropriate parking time purchased “or” the vehicle remained longer than permitted (neither of which is a ‘fact’). In their rejection letter, ParkingEye revealed too late that they contend that ‘no parking was purchased’ on the date in question. This is an alleged ‘fact’ that the NTK failed to state in the first place.

    Despite the wording of ParkingEye’s appeal stating that it is me that has to pay the charge, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver due to the failure to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act. There is no evidence of who that individual was - and that person was not me. ParkingEye cannot therefore find me liable for the charge.

    Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used the alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’ – the one with a blank space near the bottom of page two and no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA 2012 Legislation.

    I have highlighted on the Photo of Page 2 of the PCN that there is no indication of Keeper Liability or the POFA 2012 Legislation has been followed – See PCN Issued Front Page Non POFA.JPG

    On submission of Appeal to ParkingEye - Parking Eye Appeal Letter ***** Ref - *****-******.doc they were updated that the PCN had not followed POFA 2012 Legislation and the PCN was therefore incorrectly issued.

    On Rejection Letter ******/******.pdf no indication of acknowledgement from ParkingEye relating to the PCN issued to POFA 2012 Legislation has been met.

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver. Whilst I was an occupant of the car, I was not the driver, the driver has never been admitted and there is no evidence as to the identity of that individual.

    The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that, if after a period of 28 days, ParkingEye Ltd. has the right to to claim unpaid parking charges as specified under sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    POFA 2012 requires that an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, if certain conditions are met. As sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f) highlights a NTK much adhere to the following points:

    The notice must be given by

    warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given —

    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) 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 (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;


    Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f).

    The appellant feels that the operator has failed to adhere to the conditions outlined under POFA 2012 and therefore breaches the documented legislation, which brings me to point #2:

    (Will Embed in the Photos of the PCN’s Highlighted to make sure that ParkingEye do not update POPLA which a different PCN)

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    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, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court.

    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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA 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.

    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 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.''

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper

    Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

    Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

    I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.


    4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

    As ParkingEye Ltd 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 ParkingEye 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 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.

    Regarding Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance:

    “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.''


    5. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver

    The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:

    18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you….In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.

    Baring this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. When the driver arrived at the car park it was in the hours of dusk and therefore impossible to a read, let alone understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible.

    As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this 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:

    http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site – with no lighting. In fact, some signs are obscured and hidden in some areas with large areas of the car park without visible signs. The signs are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. 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. In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.

    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, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on the majority of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    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 operator’s 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.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.!

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm


    ''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.”

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or 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 and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    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 an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:

    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. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    Based on these points, it is believed that ParkingEye Ltd. are not complying with the BPA Code of Practice with regard to position, clarity of terms and conditions and driver safety. Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that ParkingEye Ltd. be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

    In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by ParkingEye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from ParkingEye Ltd.

    Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully
    Last edited by mwjn; 17-09-2017 at 12:08 AM.
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 2:02 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    • #5
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:02 PM
    • #5
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:02 PM
    This is PE Rejection Letter -

    September 2017

    Reference: Parking Charge Notice – (Deleted PI)

    POPLA Ref: (Deleted PI)

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on *** at ****, at ****

    We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question.

    Please be advised:

    There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See also popla*co*uk

    As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount. If you have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to the full amount and you will be liable to pay this increase.

    By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services ombudsman-services*org provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.

    ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT

    A payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting parkingeye*co*uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye, PO Box 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT.

    Yours faithfully,

    ParkingEye Team

    ParkingEye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454

    (POPLA Photo with Link to POPLA was Inserted Here)

    You have received a parking charge notice, the Operator did not accept your representations and you now want to appeal.

    How to make an appeal

    If you want to appeal, you must do so within 28 days of the date of the Operator's notice of rejection.

    The quickest and easiest way to submit your appeal to POPLA is online at popla*co*uk

    Benefits to submitting your appeal online:

    Takes 15 minutes

    Process will begin immediately Manage your appeal online

    Track the status of your appeal Upload your evidence instantly

    View all documents online including Operator evidence Get a decision quicker

    Alternatively, you may submit your appeal to POPLA by post. If you would like to send your appeal via post, please write to ParkingEye directly who will provide you with the relevant details and POPLA form to complete.

    Grounds for appeal

    The grounds under which you can appeal the parking charge notice are shown below.

    1. My vehicle was stolen
    2. I was not improperly parked
    3. The amount requested on the parking charge is not correct
    4. I was not the driver or the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the alleged improper parking
    5. Extreme circumstance prevented me from parking correctly
    6. Other

    POPLA administered by The Ombudsman Service Limited

    Registered Office: POPLA, PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL. Registered in England and Wales.
    Company registration number: 4351294 VAT registration number: 798 3441 79

    Further Information

    About us

    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was passed by Parliament in order to return to the British public, ‘freedoms’ they feel other legislation has eroded or removed over time.

    The Act deals with a wide range of issues and one of those is the ban on immobilising (‘clamping’) or removing (‘towing-away’), without lawful authority, vehicles that are parked private land.

    The Act also introduced the concept of 'keeper liability' for vehicles parked on private land. However, for this, there had to be an independent appeals service, provided by funding from the parking industry.

    That independent service is known as Parking on Private Land Appeals or POPLA.

    How the appeal process works

    Receive your verification number

    The Operator should have sent you a 10 digit verification code with their rejection notice. You will need this before you can submit an appeal to POPLA. You should contact the Operator if you have not received this.

    Collect your evidence

    You should be prepared to enclose any evidence that you believe supports your case. This might include a crime reference number (if the vehicle was stolen), photographs (if you think the signage was inadequate), your pay and display voucher (if you say it was displayed and had not expired) or any witness statements if applicable.

    Submit your appeal

    Once you have collected all of your evidence you can submit your appeal to POPLA by post/online. We must receive this within the 28 day period from when the Operator issued its notice of rejection. You are also advised to obtain a certificate of posting at the time you send it (if applicable).

    Our decision

    The Assessor will examine all of the evidence presented by you and the Operator before issuing their decision. The Assessor will consider the BPA Code of Practice to the degree where it is pertinent to the facts and applies any relevant law.

    If the Assessor determines that you are liable for the parking charge, he or she must refuse the appeal. If however, the Assessor determines that you are not liable for the parking charge, he or she must allow the appeal.

    POPLA administered by The Ombudsman Service Limited

    Registered Office: POPLA, PO Box 1270, Warrington, WA4 9RL. Registered in England and Wales.
    Company registration number: 4351294 VAT registration number: 798 3441 79


    Dear Sir / Madam,

    Please find below further information in relation to your recent appeal/enquiry. __________________________________________________ ________________________________

    FAQ

    How was a contract formed with the driver?

    The Parking Charges issued for, and on behalf of, the landowner are levied on the basis of a con-tract with the motorist, set out via signage at the site. The signage details the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge will be payable, if the terms and conditions are breached.

    The DVLA release the name and address details of a vehicle keeper to registered companies like ourselves if ‘reasonable cause (i.e. breach of parking regulations) can be shown. We ensure sign-age is ample, clear, and visible and in line with the BPA Code of Practice to ensure the motorist is bound when they enter and remain at a client site. ParkingEye considers that it is trite law that a contract can be formed in this way.

    The case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley [2014], proves particularly beneficial when consid-ering the creation of a contract with the driver. Here it was stated that, “it is well established that a valid contract can be made by offer, in the form of terms and conditions set out on the notice, and acceptance, in the form of one’s car in the space provided […] any unequivocal act of acceptance will suffice, and the signs clearly state (as anyone would expect nowadays) that parking constitutes acceptance.”

    The Supreme Court has now subsequently supported this positon and Lord Mance states within the Judgment that, “There is common ground between all before the court that the relationship between ParkingEye and Mr Beavis was a contractual relationship […] Mr Beavis undertook not to park for more [than] two hours and, upon any breach of that obligation, incurred a liability of £85.” He then goes on to state that, “[…] I am satisfied that it is correct in law. The terms of the signs which Mr Beavis must be taken to have accepted by conduct in entering and parking in the car park are to that effect. Mr Beavis thereby expressly agreed to stay for two hours maximum […] and to pay the stipulated sum if he failed so to comply.”

    Is the Charge enforceable? Is the Charge a penalty?

    In relation to the value and enforceability of the Parking Charge, ParkingEye relies upon the Su-preme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour. The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

    In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Asso-ciation Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.

    Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not mani-festly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”

    ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.

    How can the Charge be enforceable if there is a reduction for early payment?

    The offer of a reduction is not indicative that the Charge should be considered a penalty. ParkingEye is required to offer a reduction for prompt payment pursuant to clause 19.7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    Does ParkingEye have the authority to issue Parking Charges?

    ParkingEye can confirm that it only operates on sites that are situated on private land, are not council owned and that ParkingEye has written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge No-tices on all of its sites from the landowner.

    ParkingEye must accept or reject my appeal within 35 days?

    The clause (22.8) to which this argument refers to has been amended and is accessible to the general public in the latest British Parking Association Code of Practice. ParkingEye remain fully compliant with the Code of Practice and all relevant transitional arrangements.

    Do ParkingEye use CCTV to monitor car parks?

    ParkingEye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applica-ble, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured.

    Can I claim back VAT on a Parking Charge Notice?

    Parking Charge Notices are outside the scope for VAT. Therefore, in accordance with HM Customs, you cannot claim back VAT on this Charge.

    Yours faithfully,

    ParkingEye Team
    Last edited by mwjn; 15-09-2017 at 2:38 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Sep 17, 2:03 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #6
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:03 PM
    • #6
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:03 PM
    You need to either remove your disguised link or amend the photo


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you


    Remove the unique info on the photo that identifies you (eg location/date/time)
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 2:16 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    • #7
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:16 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:16 PM
    Hi Quentin

    I have removed them and will reload after thanks
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 2:35 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:35 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:35 PM
    Hi Quentin

    Removed Info and Reloaded

    Are these ok?

    Thanks
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 2:41 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    • #9
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:41 PM
    Parking Eye PCN
    • #9
    • 15th Sep 17, 2:41 PM
    Hi All

    Hopefully all the information is now available to review

    Many thanks
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Sep 17, 2:42 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    https://i.imgur.com/EK0U3QF.jpg


    https://i.imgur.com/ubQAZ8p.jpg
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 2:48 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    Hi Quentin

    Are they now ok I have reupdated the front page one

    Thanks
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Sep 17, 3:09 PM
    • 33,227 Posts
    • 17,175 Thanks
    Quentin
    Yes .
    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 15th Sep 17, 3:10 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    Hi Quentin

    Thanks for updating me
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 12:16 AM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I used a template from Coupon-Mad

    See Below

    Thanks
    Originally posted by mwjn
    At gone midnight, that was too long for me to read, so I've bumped it up for tomorrow!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-09-2017 at 1:50 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 16th Sep 17, 8:59 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    Hi Coupon-Mad

    Many thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 1:56 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used the alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’ – the one with a blank space near the bottom of page two and no reference to POFA.
    All I spotted was a repetition of this paragraph, so remove either one.

    You WILL WIN! This is a ''Parking Eye ''golden ticket'' (copyright = me!) and how we love them on here!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 16th Sep 17, 5:55 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    Hi Coupon-Mad

    Brilliant thanks for updating me I will remove it

    Can you do one last review I have made the main points why the POFA has not been met and I just want confirmation that you think it all looks ok and I will submit it

    Also I will submit in the PCN Parking Eye sent me in Photos

    The Rejection Letter from ParkingEye and also my Original Appeal Letter so that POPLA have all evidence

    Many thanks for all your help on this
    Last edited by mwjn; 16-09-2017 at 7:39 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 9:51 PM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You can't have all this because the PCN did arrive in time (by day 15 counting the parking event as day one). You point is really just that this is a non-POFA PCN, for whatever reason, PE have not used the wording on the back about keeper liability:

    Right to Claim Unpaid Parking Charges from the Keeper of Vehicle – Schedule 4 Paragraph 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12.

    The notice must be given – Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 (4) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9 (4), which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

    ’’The notice must be given by—

    (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
    (b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

    The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post.

    The NTK sent for the Registered Keeper arrived some 14 days after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’ (which previous cases suggest ParkingEye never do in any case at all because they use a third party batch-mail system, Whistl or iMail or similar, which adds up to a week before a letter is posted) it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).

    This means that ParkingEye have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

    No it doesn't. They have acted in time but not used POFA wording.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-09-2017 at 9:53 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • mwjn
    • By mwjn 16th Sep 17, 10:25 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    mwjn
    Hi Coupon-Mad

    I have removed the section and I have looked at schedule 4 and included so more concise example for Non-POFA does it look now ok?

    Thanks I do appreciate all your assistance on this, I dont want to mess it up

    Hopefully it is now ready to submit and sorry for asking you to proof read it
    Last edited by mwjn; 17-09-2017 at 12:09 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 17, 12:52 AM
    • 51,473 Posts
    • 65,061 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that's perfect - this is the killer point:

    Upon reviewing the NTK, ParkingEye Ltd have omitted any mention of the conditions as outlined in sub-paragraph 9 (2) (f).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, 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

112Posts Today

2,206Users online

Martin's Twitter