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
    • sheffieldstudent
    • By sheffieldstudent 2nd Dec 17, 2:36 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 1Thanks
    sheffieldstudent
    Parking Charge Aire Street Leeds ParkingEYE DRAFT APPEAL PLEASE CHECK
    • #1
    • 2nd Dec 17, 2:36 PM
    Parking Charge Aire Street Leeds ParkingEYE DRAFT APPEAL PLEASE CHECK 2nd Dec 17 at 2:36 PM
    Hi I have just received a Parking charge for Aire Street Car Park in Leeds, as Keeper of this car i want to appeal. Can someone please check my draft??

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. ....................

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver as they are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. This is in breech of Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice which states "You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are." and Section 18.3 which states "You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle." Signs are not visble from all areas of the car park meaning that since the driver did not exit the car as they did not plan on leaving their car unattended, they were not able to read the terms and conditions of entering the car park.

    The car park in question does not have clearly marked out bays, leading to cars obstructing the path to navigate said car park. Meaning 8 of the 10 minutes spent in said car park were spent navigating and reversing in order to try and manover out. The driver also noted how, due to non-marked bays, other cars were blocking in cars already parked in the car park. The driver decided not to park in this car park as they did not want to also get blocked in. Due to improper signage they did not see the full terms and conditions of this car park but assumed that a "Grace Period" applied as per the BPA Codes of Practice (Section 13-Grace Periods) which states
    "13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice. 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". This is further elaborated on in Section 18.5 which states " If a driver is parking with your permission, they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract." The driver did not have the chance to read terms and condtions, as dicussed above in the signage section, so therefore has not entered into a contract with you. This makes your charge invalid.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,

    ---------------------------------------------
    Thanks
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Dec 17, 2:46 PM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,667 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 2nd Dec 17, 2:46 PM
    • #2
    • 2nd Dec 17, 2:46 PM
    You’ve added to the newbies sticky template. I don’t think you’ve done yourself any harm - but the stuff you’ve added would ordinarily be that which would form part of your POPLA appeal.

    You’ve put them on notice that you have not exceeded the grace periods, so if they continue with this it will be a strong point to add to your POPLA appeal.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 02-12-2017 at 2:48 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • sheffieldstudent
    • By sheffieldstudent 2nd Dec 17, 2:53 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sheffieldstudent
    • #3
    • 2nd Dec 17, 2:53 PM
    • #3
    • 2nd Dec 17, 2:53 PM
    Hi do you think I should leave the sections i've added in? will it harm a second appeal if i do?

    thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Dec 17, 2:58 PM
    • 15,906 Posts
    • 24,667 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 2nd Dec 17, 2:58 PM
    • #4
    • 2nd Dec 17, 2:58 PM
    Hi do you think I should leave the sections i've added in? will it harm a second appeal if i do?

    thanks
    Originally posted by sheffieldstudent
    You haven’t blow any toes off by including them. It shouldn’t harm the second appeal (POPLA) - in fact it will be an added point to make to POPLA, should PE reject your initial appeal, that PE knew they were in breach of the grace periods requirements yet refused to recognise that.

    Then it opens the way for a complaint from you to the BPA and demand that sanction points are issued to PE for knowingly contravening BPA Code of Practice requirements. .
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • sheffieldstudent
    • By sheffieldstudent 2nd Dec 17, 3:08 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sheffieldstudent
    • #5
    • 2nd Dec 17, 3:08 PM
    • #5
    • 2nd Dec 17, 3:08 PM
    Thanks very much for the help very useful
    • claxtome
    • By claxtome 3rd Dec 17, 8:46 PM
    • 334 Posts
    • 334 Thanks
    claxtome
    • #6
    • 3rd Dec 17, 8:46 PM
    • #6
    • 3rd Dec 17, 8:46 PM
    If, as expected, you get an Appeal Rejection from ParkingEye my successful POPLA Appeal thread for 5 1/2 mins in a Premier Car park with ANPR should help and give you encouragement to keep fighting it->
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5693229
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

129Posts Today

2,862Users online

Martin's Twitter