Advice on a Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice

Coupon-mad

Yours will not go to Court, for sure, as you will win it at POPLA if you follow our advice about how to word the appeal properly.

Most PE fake PCNs that are ignored do not go to Court anyway, it's very rare and very defendable. Yes we have had posters on here have a Court case attempted by various scammer PPCs on the odd occasion (again I stress it's as rare as hen's teeth!) but when the PPC sees a robust defence they usually duck out.

So, let's see a draft of what you are thinking of adding now - urgently - to your own 'evidence' for POPLA. We need to know you've not missed any points.

Eunos1

Again thanks for your advice, I have drafted the following email:

Appeal reasons:
Please find my appeal below now that I can finally access the appeals site! Parkingeye issued parking charge notice number 520767/340533 arising out of the presence at Riverside, Chelmsford , on 21st December 2012 , of my vehicle with registration mark AK54XFU. I am appealing against this charge On the 21st December 2012, Parkingeye issued a parking charge notice because my vehicle with registration mark AK54XFU was recorded on the 21st December 2012 via automatic number plate recognition as having stayed in the Chelmsford Riverside Complex Car Park for 2 hours 33 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 2 hours.. The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They state that there is a 2 hour maximum stay and that a failure to comply with the restrictions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. Mr representations are firstly based on the fact that the amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by the ParkingEye Ltd The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Parking Eye, and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. Also the Operator has no proprietary interest in the land and thereforehas no authority to issue parking charge notices. In addition Parkingeye has breached the BPA Code by not stating on their signs that automatic number plate recognition is being used at the site. It is in my opinion that on this particular occasion, Parkingeye have not shown me that they have authority to issue parking charge notices. In addition the Operator does not have authority, the burden of proof shifts to Parkingeye to prove otherwise. I would ask that Parkingeye produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier. If Parkingeye has not asigned any legal title to Parkingeye then Parkingeye cannot allege contract or tresspass against any visitors? Further to my appeal please find my email I sent to POLPA originally due to your apeals site not working. On this date having parked my vehicle at Riverside Car Park I returned to my car within the two hour time period. Having returned to my vehicle I discovered that the entire car park was grid locked. I began to get into my vehicle with two three year olds but soon realised that the traffic was not moving anywhere. I observed this for around 5 minutes and realised it was going to take at least 20 minutes to get out! I decided to wait for the traffic to die down before leaving, I then attended McDonalds and paid for three meals and waited a further 20 minutes for the traffic to ease off. By this time I came out and saw that although the traffic was still poor it had decreased by about a third. I then tried to get out of the car park which took me at least another 10 minutes. I paid cash for the McDonald's and do not have a receipt for it. I used this store within the Riverside complex whilst I was waiting. The traffic system was not appropriate for the level of traffic. There were no members of staff from Parkingeye present in order to assist traffic flow. CCTV and parking eye cameras will confirm this and me being in McDonald's paying for goods. Christmas shopping obviously had an effect on the flow of the car park, parkingeye have not made allowances for this. The fact remains that I WAS back at my car within the allotted time, I WILL be on CCTV in McDonald's purchasing the goods. The traffic within your car park did not allow for the congestion within the car park. The charge of £50 is excessive for what was is ultimately the fault of the car park company. If the car park was correctly managed with actual staff being present I am sure this would have been recognised. This charge is unacceptable and excessive, this has not been independently reviewed and none of my valid points have been considered. I will not be paying this charge and look forward to you investigating this matter properly and ultimately quashing this case I have asked Parkingeye to cover the following points. These have not been answered: 1. Clarity around the congestion in their car park. 2. Productions of contracts with the land owners 3. I have asked Parkingeye to clarify what measures they have in place should the car park be unmanageable, and who physically manages this site? I have not received this. 4. Copies of CCTV within the car park 2 hours either side of the parking charge in order to prove my case detailing that the car park was unmanageable. Regards Colin Jacobs

Can I just say your service is invaluable! Thanks again for your help!

Stroma

I can't read that, sorry but you need to put paragraphs in

Guys_Dad

Eunos1 wrote: »

Again thanks for your advice, I have drafted the following email:

Appeal reasons:
Please find my appeal below
Parkingeye PCN 520767/340533
Location:- Riverside, Chelmsford
Date :-21st December 2012
Vehicle registration:- AK54XFU.

On the 21st December 2012, Parkingeye issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in the Chelmsford Riverside Complex Car Park for 2 hours 33 minutes, which was longer than the maximum stay of 2 hours.

The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly displayed throughout the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They state that there is a 2 hour maximum stay and that a failure to comply with the restrictions means that a parking charge notice will be issued.

My Appeal.

1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by the Parking Eye Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997.

2. I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, no contract with the landowner that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices. This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parkingeye to prove otherwise. I would ask that Parkingeye produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier that gives them this authority..

3. Parkingeye has breached the BPA Code by not stating on their signs that automatic number plate recognition is being used at the site. The BPA guidelines for their members state

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

4. I returned to my car within the two hour time period, but as a result of christmas Shopping crowds, I discovered that the entire car park was grid locked. I began to get into my vehicle with two three year olds but soon realised that the traffic was not moving anywhere. There were no members of staff from Parkingeye present in order to assist traffic flow. Christmas shopping obviously had an effect on the flow of the car park an Parkingeye had not made allowances for this, failing in any claim to be managing the parking.
The traffic system was not appropriate for the level of traffic.

The fact is that I WAS back at my car within the allotted time, but the traffic within the car due to the seasonal congestion, prevented me from leaving within the 2 hour period, an event which should have been anticipated by the Parking Management company and properly managed.

For these reasons, I trust you will allow my appeal

Without rewriting your appeal from square one, I have attempted to remove the irrelevant bits and make it readable and to the point.

On point 3, you should attach photographs of the errant signs as you have not given proof of this claim otherwise and if they dispute this, without evidence, you lose the point.

Others may wish to change if further, so treat this as a 2nd draft.

Good luck. :beer:

Coupon-mad

I didn't think POPLA could be emailed? Thought it was all on a form - just checking as I think you said this was for POPLA not an appeal to PE.

So, 3rd draft suggestions from me:

Get rid of this bit because this is for Shona to say, not you, it's part of her decision summary not part of your appeal:

[STRIKE]The Operator’s case is that the terms and conditions for parking are clearly
displayed throughout the site. Copies of the conditions have been produced. They
state that there is a 2 hour maximum stay and that a failure to comply with the
restrictions means that a parking charge notice will be issued. [/STRIKE]

These first paragraphs below which were both within point #2 are two different distinct points, please split them or the proprietary interest point will be swallowed up by the contract request which they could fairly easily send:

- I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking Eye's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge. I require Parking Eye to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

I contend that Parking Eye are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.


- I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parkingeye to prove otherwise so I require that Parkingeye produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it in the light of VCS -v- HMRC 2012.

Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Eye and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Eye can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.


Then with this bit under your point #4 you could add that any contract about maximum stay at Christmas fails under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008:

...''The traffic system was not appropriate for the level of traffic. The fact is that I WAS back at my car within the allotted time, but the traffic within the car park due to the seasonal congestion, prevented me from leaving within the 2 hour period, an event which should have been anticipated by any company purporting to be a 'Parking Management' company and properly managed.

Therefore I contend that this complete lack of planning, action or any adjustment for seasonal crowds is in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPTUR) and renders any alleged contract null and void on the basis of unfairness. I understand from the DFT information about POPLA that the adjudicators are duty bound to take into account the relevant laws applicable and so I contend that this alleged contract (if there even is one) is unfair and unenforceable in this instance.''

Coupon-mad

Read this interesting thread with great input from the most in-the-know 'big guns' on there like broadsword, discussing 'ignore or appeal':

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77301

I see that more has been added as suggestions by broadsword on how to play the POPLA appeal to it's best outcome, in his informed opinion. You need to demand the PPC set out to POPLA exactly what basis under POFA the charge is relying upon - see his posts there.

sheilavw

Hi Coupon mad. The invoice is from December when my Daughter parked on Poundstretcher and over stayed by about 12 mins . The letter is from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. Is there more letters to follow? Thanks

Coupon-mad

sheilavw wrote: »

Hi Coupon mad. The invoice is from December when my Daughter parked on Poundstretcher and over stayed by about 12 mins . The letter is from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd. Is there more letters to follow? Thanks

Yep, most likely a couple more DRP threatograms and then a couple of 'Zenith' letters as shown under various PPCs in the letter chains thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2329119

But Zenith are just DRP using different paper (same signature for male/female fake staff members' names though!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3829727

fun, innit?!!

sheilavw

Thanks coupon mad, I will file them under b for bin!

Eunos1

Hi, I recently appealed a parking charge through POPLA but it was rejected today. They have now asked me to pay a £85 charge. Should I just pay? Im worried that I'm going to get a court date out of this? Any advice???