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
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 24th Oct 17, 8:53 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 14Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    Newbie advice 16 mins over (parking eye)
    • #1
    • 24th Oct 17, 8:53 PM
    Newbie advice 16 mins over (parking eye) 24th Oct 17 at 8:53 PM
    hi guys,

    i'm after a bit of advice please, i've read the newbie packing ticket forum but to be honest there is so much information on there i found it a bit overwhelming and thought i'd ask for advice.

    we received a letter through the door yesterday from Parking Eye requesting £100 parking charge. we entered the car park in wells by the sea at 13:01:42 and left at 16:18:17 we were in the car park for 3 hours and 16 mins. we paid for 3 hours parking but we were going by the time issued on the ticket (which we no longer have)

    the issue we have is we were under the impression that there was supposed to be a grace period for parking? they have not taken into account the time that it took to actually park the car, find the machine, walk to the machine, wait in a queue for ages while the couple in front scrambled for change etc. we were back at our vehicle on time but with strapping in 2 babies and giving the dog a drink, we may have ran over.

    we were also under the impression that there was a time limit on when you were supposed t be notfied by? we parked on the 30/09/17 and were only notified yesterday 23/10/17 (23 days later)

    we want to appeal but we're not sure if its worth it or where to start. i've looked at the newbies forum but i got a bit confused and don't want to copy/paste the wrong items and stuff up my appeal if there even is one. some have even offered the advice of "ignore it"

    lastly, it looks like they have issued a "golden ticket" as the bottom section of the PCN is blank and does not have any information stated that should be there.

    thanks in advance
Page 2
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 13th Nov 17, 7:53 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    Yup, throw that in. You win!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    thank you, i hope one day i will be able to help someone as much as you guys have helped me.
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 13th Nov 17, 8:10 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    Final draft before it gets sent to the lovely people at POPLA. if you could give it one final scan i would be eternally greatful


    Vehicle registration: xxxxxxx
    Date of event: 30/09/17
    Date issued: 19/10/17
    Ref number: 172849/981960

    Dear POPLA,

    On the 30/09/2017, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”

    As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

    1) The Notice to Keeper does not warn the keeper that 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)
    2) The operator failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice Grace’ Periods
    3) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period.
    4) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing
    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



    1) 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)

    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).

    Parking Eye could only potentially enforce this charge against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was.

    Parking Eye are attempting to transfer the charge to the appellant. They have no legal grounds to do so.
    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially 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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver 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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 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 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 cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

    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.''


    2) Failure to adhere to the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice ‘Grace’ Periods.

    Although Parking Eye LTD have failed to state the fact on any of their paperwork the driver had purchased a parking ticket for the day and time in question. The alleged offence by Parking Eye Ltd , “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”, is assumed to relate to the fact that there was a 3 hour and 16 minute gap between Parking Eye’s ANPR system taking images of the vehicle passing the entrance/exit to the car park, while the driver paid for 3 hour of parking.

    The BPA Code of Practice clearly highlights within section 13 that a company’s approach to parking management must allow a vehicle “…a reasonable period without having their vehicle issues with a parking charge notice.” Subsections 13.2 and 13.4 offer further clarification stating that

    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    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.

    Upon receiving the Parking Charge, the document described the vehicle as merely entering the car park at 13:01 and merely leaving at 16:18. The BPA sets a minimum of 10 minutes just to leave, not a maximum grace period. As Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA quoted in the news article ‘Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ period’: “…there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.” To briefly summaries his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and pay.

    The total time from arrival to exit was 3 hour and 16 minutes. Sufficient payment was made for 3 hours of parking. It is clear from the evidence that ParkingEye Ltd. have failed to uphold and consider reasonable grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above, nor allow the necessary grace period for finding a parking space, purchasing the ticket and leaving the car park.




    3) The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was delivered outside of the relevant period specified under sub-paragraph 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

    Sub-paragraph 9 (5) specifies that the relevant period for delivery of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the purposes of sub-paragraph 9 (4) is a period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. According to the PCN, the specified period of parking ended on Saturday 30th September. The relevant period is therefore the 14 day period from Sunday 1st October 2017 to Saturday 14th October 2017 inclusive. Sub-paragraph 9 (6) states that a notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales. The “Letter Date” stated on the PCN is Thursday 19th September and in accordance with sub-paragraph 9 (6) is presumed to have been “given” on Monday 23rd October 2017 (i.e. outside of the relevant period).

    4) ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

    It is suggested that ParkingEye Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that ParkingEye Ltd. be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.

    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

    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 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:

    hxxp://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. 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:

    hxxp://wXw-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

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

    hxxp://wXw.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.”
    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:

    hxxp://wXw.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.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Nov 17, 1:24 PM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,228 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    The 4000 word POPLA appeals I cant review any longer. too long.
    If its gone througha couple drafts and YOU are happy, send it in.
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 15th Nov 17, 6:37 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    its submitted, thank you all for your help
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 7:02 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    POPLA have emailed today, they have received a response from parking eye and its basically a copy of pictures of all the car parking signs from 2015 when they were installed and a their checklist of all the documentation they've sent out. POPLA have asked for comments on the operators evidence.

    basically my question is, do i need to put anything in the comment box? all i will be doing is repeating what i've put in my appeal letter. i hope this is sorted soon, i hate having things hanging over my head and not being able to do anything about it.

    thanks for all of your help so far
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Dec 17, 7:10 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,073 Thanks
    Redx
    what you SHOULD be doing is rebutting and refuting their evidence pack and you have 7 days to do so

    so go through their evidence pack and produce a short rebuttal of anything you find that is incorrect , missing , redacted , unsigned etc

    check contracts , pictures , signage , location etc
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 7:38 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    thank you. half of the information they have included is badly scanned in and is almost unreadable but they have included a copy of the contract with the land owner which says its effective for 24 months from the effective date.

    parking eye said in their brief statement "Please note that whilst the ‘Effective Date’ at the top of the contract demonstrating ParkingEye’s authority to
    operate at this site and issue Parking Charges has not been filled out, within the terms and conditions of the
    contract it clearly states that the definition of the ‘Effective Date’ “means the date of signature of this
    agreement or any Purchase Order received from the Customer (whichever is earlier)”. As the contract was
    signed on 05/04/2015, it is evident that the contract was effective from this date. It should also be noted that it
    is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any
    such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences and the authority is given.


    the contract they have included states that their contract term with the land owner starts from 05/04/15 (effective date) over a period commencing on the effective date and expires after a period of 24 months which would be 05/04/17.

    the way i look at it, they either haven't submitted the correct contract as evidence, which is silly or their contract has expired and they are issuing invoices for a property they no longer have a valid contract to manage.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Dec 17, 7:42 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,073 Thanks
    Redx
    so say so in your rebuttal

    look for any other errors etc in their bundle

    the whole point of this excercise is that you get to see their evidence and surgically dismantle it like you have no started to do

    your rebuttal should be short and sweet and concentrate on highlighting these errors in their evidence pack, not reiterate what you have said already
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 7:47 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    im so glad there are kind helpful people like you out there to give adivce.

    there isn't really much more to put in if i'm honest most their evidence is photographs of the signage they installed in 2015.

    thank you for the advice, i'll go over it few more times and i'll update you once i get an outcome from popla
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Dec 17, 7:52 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,073 Thanks
    Redx
    so is the signage like the BEAVIS case or full of small print ? does it meet the BPA CoP ? if not , say so and comment on it

    is the signage shown the ones on that site or another site miles away ?

    could the driver have seen the signage from their vehicle (check any maps provided for signage locations etc)

    so find and comment on every dubious admission on their part

    landowner contracts and signage constitute the main failures of parking companies, apart from POFA non-compliance etc
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 8:12 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    90% of the signs are on site there is lots of small print which cant even be made out from the photos they have submitted as evidence from when they installed them in 2015 and some of the photo look like they have been taken from 2 feet away. some of the signs would be visible from the car but there is no way that any information could be gained from it as the print is so small. the only signs that a fully legible just say that a tariff is payable, private property and to see signs fro terms ans conditions
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 6th Dec 17, 8:43 PM
    • 611 Posts
    • 1,574 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Have a look through PE's evidence to see if you can find the statement "Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the appellant’s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case".

    PE normally include this in "Golden Ticket" evidence packs. If it's in yours, you can draw this to POPLA's attention as evidence that PE have admitted that they failed to comply with POFA.
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 9:04 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    Have a look through PE's evidence to see if you can find the statement "Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the appellant’s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case".

    PE normally include this in "Golden Ticket" evidence packs. If it's in yours, you can draw this to POPLA's attention as evidence that PE have admitted that they failed to comply with POFA.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    funny enough, it does say that in their statement. if it wasn't issued under POFA 2012 then what was it issued under? i will happily include it in my statement i'm just not sure i really understand it
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 6th Dec 17, 9:07 PM
    • 348 Posts
    • 350 Thanks
    claxtome
    Think the newbie sticky thread mentions about ParkingEye 'golden ticket' with links to other threads.
    Last edited by claxtome; 06-12-2017 at 9:27 PM. Reason: Tablet crashed while editing
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 9:09 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    i have got a golden ticket as they have omitted the POFA 2012 part from the PCN i'm just not 100% sure how to word it to use it as evidence
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Dec 17, 9:44 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,073 Thanks
    Redx
    you cannot submit any evidence now

    you can only highlight errors or issues in their evidence pack

    so you highlight the fact they they have issued the NTK to the keeper yet have said they are not relying on POFA2012 , SO THE KEEPER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE CHARGE

    also check what they have said about GRACE PERIODS because this was a supposed overstay of 16 minutes and clause #13 has 2 grace periods which cover this
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 9:55 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    you cannot submit any evidence now

    you can only highlight errors or issues in their evidence pack

    so you highlight the fact they they have issued the NTK to the keeper yet have said they are not relying on POFA2012 , SO THE KEEPER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE CHARGE

    also check what they have said about GRACE PERIODS because this was a supposed overstay of 16 minutes and clause #13 has 2 grace periods which cover this
    Originally posted by Redx
    sorry, i should have worded that differently, i didn't mean to suggest i was submitting new evidence. what they said on the grace periods is:

    "ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice"
    • Redx
    • By Redx 6th Dec 17, 10:00 PM
    • 16,937 Posts
    • 21,073 Thanks
    Redx
    in that case comment that as the parking fee was paid and so TWO grace periods apply , one before and one after , its not unreasonable to assume that the initial time to park up and get a ticket is up to 10 minutes and its more than 10 minutes to leave a busy car park in a holiday area at the time of year

    their evidence pack should show the time the ticket was purchased, so 3 hours after that it lapses, this should give you the first and second actual grace periods compared to the anpr photo timings

    we have seen other popla appeals won recently where the assessor has mentioned this, so look them up and see what they said

    then include that in the rebuttal too

    and do not forget , you are commenting on their evidence pack, not adding to your own case , so stick with finding and rebutting their pack, so contracts , signage , grace periods, POFA2012 failures and admissions etc
    Last edited by Redx; 06-12-2017 at 10:02 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • supertramp_1980
    • By supertramp_1980 6th Dec 17, 10:20 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    supertramp_1980
    I've nearly ran out of space, i can only add 200 words. what i put is:

    parking eye have said in their statement "Please note that whilst the ‘Effective Date’ at the top of the contract demonstrating ParkingEye’s authority to operate at this site and issue Parking Charges has not been filled out, within the terms and conditions of the contract it clearly states that the definition of the ‘Effective Date’ “means the date of signature of this agreement or any Purchase Order received from the Customer (whichever is earlier)”. As the contract was signed on 05/04/2015, it is evident that the contract was effective from this date. It should also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences and the authority is given.

    Based on that evidence, the contract that you've submitted states the term as "A period commencing on the effective date and expiring after 24 months" the contract term expired on 05/04/2017.

    Parking Eye have said "Please be advised, this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, the appellant’s comments regarding the Parking Charge Notice being issued incorrectly are not relevant in the case" The PCN has been issued to the keeper yet parking eye are stating that the PCN has not been issued under POFA 2012. if it has not been issued under POFA 2012, then the keeper cannot be liable for the charge.

    the parking fee was paid and so TWO grace periods apply , one before and one after , its not unreasonable to assume that the initial time to park up and get a ticket is up to 10 minutes and its more than 10 minutes to leave a busy car park in a holiday area. the ticket was purchased at 13:07 which says we have used a grace period of 6 minutes to park, purchase the ticket and return to the vehicle. the 3 hours of paid parking takes us to 16:07 and we departed at 16:18 which is a grace period of 11 minutes which i do not believe is unreasonable.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Dec 17, 10:50 PM
    • 4,791 Posts
    • 3,153 Thanks
    KeithP
    the parking fee was paid and so TWO grace periods apply , one before and one after , its not unreasonable to assume that the initial time to park up and get a ticket is up to 10 minutes and its more than 10 minutes to leave a busy car park in a holiday area. the ticket was purchased at 13:07 which says we have used a grace period of 6 minutes to park, purchase the ticket and return to the vehicle. the 3 hours of paid parking takes us to 16:07 and we departed at 16:18 which is a grace period of 11 minutes which i do not believe is unreasonable.
    Originally posted by supertramp_1980
    Can you work into that the fact that PE have stated "All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice"?
    Note that they say all grace periods.

    Remember you are rebutting the operator's comments, so without something like that your comment could be seen as 'new evidence'.


    I've nearly ran out of space, i can only add 200 words.
    Originally posted by supertramp_1980
    That in itself should not be a limiting factor.

    Although you should keep your comments concise and to the point, it is possible to send them as a PDF email attachment.

    This may help:
    Convert it to a .pdf file and attach it to an email to POPLA. Make sure you have all your reference numbers on the email and the rebuttal document.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    ...or this:
    Don't feel the need to be constrained by the rubbish 2000 character limit on POPLA's website, nor by the website's failure to allow files to be uploaded at the rebuttal stage of the process.

    You can write as much as you like in your rebuttal of ECP's evidence and then send it as a PDF by e-mail to POPLA.
    Originally posted by Edna Basher
    Last edited by KeithP; 06-12-2017 at 10:57 PM.
    .
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

2,015Posts Today

6,121Users online

Martin's Twitter