Parking Eye - Parking Notice Charge

Coupon-mad

scoobygilo wrote: »

I think the panic is the time constraints, and to try and use the knowledge and expertise from people that have helped time and time again to speed things up, so I appreciate all the help that everyone is giving.
Maybe if there was a template or some used examples that people could adapt, then this would also help others.

But there IS standard wording - and an exact template would be stupidly daft for everyone to use, hardly credible and easy for a PPC to rebut! Similar challenge wording is repeated on every PE thread...and you really do need to read up on POPLA appeals in readiness to get the gist.

scoobygilo

Appeal now sent to Parking Eye, and will now wait for their reply.

Thanks for all your help guys :T

scoobygilo

So ive now received a response from ParkingEye, with a POPLA reference number.

Of course as expected, appeal was unsuccesful due to the fact the car park is a pay and display car park only, and their records show that I did not make a purchase of a valid pay and display ticket, or the appropriate parking time on the date of the parking event was exceeded.
However as a gesture of goodwill, they are willing to extend the discount period for a further 14 days.

And they have also supplied me with a POPLA appeal form.

So any further help would be much appreciated please

Coupon-mad

A demand for money from a PPC is never a gesture of goodwill = still a scam.

The advice is to read threads on here and on pepipoo forum showing POPLA appeal wording and then draft your own based on what you read. Here's pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=60

There is also this odd thread I recalled but personally I think the POPLA appeal wording used was rambling! However, some valid points were made and it won at POPLA:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76548&st=20&p=785597

So please don't just copy that entire rambling one but copy & paste the useful bits, bearing in mind that was also a PE case where no ticket had been purchased. And there are MUCH BETTER POPLA appeal examples that that around the 2 forums!

Read any PPC thread (not just PE) on the first 2 or 3 pages on pepipoo where they are talking about POPLA appeal wording. You will find all sorts of useful links which I have no time to search for again now, sorry. Same goes for the first 2 or 3 pages of this MSE forum - start with reading the 'POPLA decisions' thread at the top - every post - to see the sort of thing that wins.

Then we can help to perfect your POPLA appeal if you want to show us your draft later in the week.

scoobygilo

Thank you. Some great help

scoobygilo

Can I add in statements made from previous POPLA appeal letters, even if I never stated these points with Parking Eye?

Umkomaas

scoobygilo wrote: »

Can I add in statements made from previous POPLA appeal letters, even if I never stated these points with Parking Eye?

Yes - absolutely. PE in particular have been pushing that POPLA appeals should only comprise the detail already submitted to the PPC.

Definitely not the case, and probably the most successful appeal format has been - soft appeal to the PPC (with inevitable rejection) followed by an 'all guns blazing' appeal to POPLA covering all bases.

So pick and mix from the various reference points and put together a draft so that the forum appeal experts can help you hone it.

Here's a very comprehensive example of an appeal, so a good starting point to begin your research.

Delprimero Exocet

Coupon-mad

scoobygilo wrote: »

Can I add in statements made from previous POPLA appeal letters, even if I never stated these points with Parking Eye?

Your POPLA appeal can be completely different. Please show us your draft based on copy & pasted stuff you've found about the usual issues.

scoobygilo

Ok, ive conjured up an appeal letter to POPLA, if you dont mind reading it through and advising if anything is incorrect, or requires to be added or removed please.


Please be aware that this notification ismade on the understanding that should you read it you will be agreeing to acontract for payment of a sum of £30 with a reduction of £15 for payment within14 days. The service offered is for general education regarding parkingmatters.



NAME & ADDRESS

Date
________________________________________________________________________________
Parking Appeal

Dear Sir,
I appeal against the decision from Parking Eye on the basis that the parkingcharge (ticket) exceeded the appropriate amount. If any charge is due at allthis should amount to £2.00.

On my appeal to Parking Eye I made it clear to them that I had doubts as to thereason for the charge laid against me. I asked them to clarify whether theticket was due to a supposed contractual breach or for trespass. Since theremedy for rectification of the alleged misdemeanour is dependent on whichcircumstance it was supposed to be applied against they have failed toenlighten me as to what specific point of appeal I should follow.

Parking Eye manage the car park on behalf of the Marriott Hotel, Windsor, andact as an agent for the landowner, who by his right of land ownership can onlyimpose a payment in respect of the actual losses incurred by that party againstsomeone who has trespassed on the premises, albeit unintentionally.

The Marriott Hotel are not members of the BPA thus are not bound by the BPAcode of practice so the imposition of terms and conditions by Parking Eye, onbehalf of Marriott Hotel, Windsor to their own pecuniary advantage is beyondtheir remit.

Parking Eye cannot set a separate term or condition for the use of the car parkthemselves or impose any parking charges based on the BPA Code of Practicewithout having a separate condition within their own client contract to offerparking to visitors at a higher price. I'm assuming they have that rightotherwise they would be in severe non compliance to the BPA Code of Practicewhich may well impact upon their continued ability to access the DVLA databasefor registered keeper details. However the law of contract or tort of trespasswould apply in either of these cases anyway.

Since the car park is a pay and display facility, even though there was amisunderstanding as to the extent of the operational hours, the loss incurredby the landowner is a matter of the time spent in the car park without makingthe relevant payment. This is a quantifiable loss as can be seen on the signwhich displays the actual normal parking fee. In this case the first 30 minswas free, then at a rate of £2.00 for upto 2 hours, therefore the amount of theloss to the landowner is £2.00. Takingthis into account though, what justifies a reasonable time to find a parkingspace and to exit and enter my vehicle upon departure? It states by not purchasing the appropriateparking time, when not all the time incurred was spent in a parking bay.


Even if you feel that Parking Eye has a right to impose the charging structureof the BPA, I remind you that the matter of how charges should be applied islaid out clearly enough within that Code, albeit without any legislativerecognition.

This says that the normal parking structure as laid out by the landowner is notcovered by the Code of Practice. It must therefore mean that any furthercharges are for a breach of contract or for trespass on the premises. However Iremind you that the BPA has no statutory basis for the application of theimposition or suggested imposition of any charge at all. Anyone can jointogether with a few friends and give themselves a name as a body of some sort.They can also make out a set of rules or code of conduct which can be heavilyweighted in their favour. That doesn't make it an acceptable practice on whichto hold to ransom members of society who fail the test of one of their rules. Aquick look at the Code of Practice of the BPA finds many anomalies that wouldbe frowned upon in any civil court, and it doesn't need a legal expert to findthem either.

The ticket I received from Parking Eye had no reference to VAT shown on it. Ifit was an invoice for payment of a service contract, it must show VAT detailson it, ie, for parking services amount owed £50 + VAT at 20% = £60. Since thereis no mention of VAT it must therefore be presumed to be nil or zero ratedwhich would be the applicable rate for a fine or penalty, which of course isnon compliant to the BPA Code of Practice itself which states that the use offine or penalty may not be used. That doesn't legitimise the use of a moreconvenient term though. If the amount demanded were a contractual charge thenit fails the test for that based entirely upon the wording on the ticket. ItMUST show the VAT details of the company in accordance with the BPA Code ofPractice, and it does not, therefore cannot be a breach of an allegedcontractual arrangement.

To make sense of the situation in hand, I find it necessary to consider eachaspect separately. First the issue of contract, then the tort of trespass,since it was not explained which act I was being charged for.

It's my submission that this amount cannot be construed as a contractualparking breach.
To breach a contract, one must have been formed in the 1st place.
It's my submission that such a contract was not formed. At no time was itbrought to my attention on any sign that I had the right to enter a contractfor parking without payment of the relevant parking fee offered by thelandowners, for another parking charge set quite separately by Parking Eye.

If such a contract was intended it would have made that clear. There is nooffer to park at the location by payment of such a charge, and there is nodescription of what I get from such a contract, let alone be in a position toenter into a negotiation in order to influence the contractual terms which isalso a necessary part of a contract.

If there was an offer of that sort it should have been displayed on the signssaying, more or less, "parking at any time for unlimited and unrestrictedperiods is £60, including use of disabled bays by non blue badge holders"for instance. It also fails in not describing the extent of the time limit. Forinstance would such a contract, or the supposed acceptance of it by making apayment for the parking charge notice, extend my right to subsequent periods ofparking on future dates without payment of the relevant parking fee, timeunlimited? Perhaps it extends the right of placing my caravan there for theyear since I have paid a fee for it?

There has to be an offer and acceptance in contracts. A contract can only bemade in consideration of the passing or enjoyment of goods or services. I wasnot offered anything in exchange for the payment imposed.

If you consider this on the basis of parking in a disabled parking bay withoutdisplaying a blue badge. If the charge was in respect of a contract, it wouldneed to fulfil the description of contract by actually offering a driverwithout a blue badge the right to park in a disabled bay upon making therelevant payment. That is not the intended action though is it? Nor is thereany means to accept that offer by immediate payment at the location, which isalso a necessary requirement.

This is exactly the same situation as mine. I have not been offered the rightto park by Parking Eye for payment of a sum of money which is different to thatfor normal parking. The right to parking had already been extended by thelandowners.
That being an irrefutable fact, at what point would a contract to analternative parking arrangement commence? If a contract for parking had beenthe true intention it would be in danger of compromising the landowner'sintentions. The landowner allows parking for a fee. If the payment has beenexceeded that does not mean there is no intention to make a further paymentupon return to the car park to make good the shortfall.

Since life follows many complicated twists and turns, what was thought may havebeen half an hours visit may unintentionally become an hour. As long as thatextra time is paid for direct to the landowner by virtue of whatever paymentoption he has provided then the driver is fulfilling his obligations. Pleasealso note that on entry to the car park,especially where it is a pay anddisplay one, although that does not necessarily exclude free parking areas, theinitial contract is with the landowner who makes his facility available to thedriver. Any breach of the landowner's contract is quite separate to the breachof a faux contract with another party who didn't offer the initial one. Theoffer of a separate contract could only be classed as an attempt to underminethe original offer by the landowner.

If the driver contemplates taking up an offer to park in accordance with theParking Eye contract, then that option should be mentioned upfront before thepayment of the other fee is made so that the driver can choose whichever offerhe wishes to take up. A method of making direct payment to accept that offershould be available at the location which would become the point at which thedriver has considered the offer and accepted it. Without payment the offer isnot accepted.

A further complication to the offer of parking by Private Eye, if any were madeat all, would be in the different amounts. Early payment or standard payment orextra for late payment cannot constitute a reasonable basis of a contract.There may be a discount for early payment in a contract and there may be acharge for late payment in accordance with the regulatory structure for that,ie an amount of statutory interest but only when the interest and any penaltycharge is in regard to a commercial transaction, perhaps if the vehicle was alorry delivering goods. Any addition which is shown to be a penalty is reallynot in compliance to the BPA Code of Practice since that says that the use ofthe word penalty must not be used, and by implication made as an additionalcharge.

The parking charge in this instance is actually for not complying with someterm or condition, ie is a penalty. It would be difficult to see how any CountyCourt could see any different to that explanation and I would be more thanhappy to have them rule on that very point if needed, which would probablyresult in a particularly embarrassing scrutiny of a different finding by POPLAif you decide otherwise.

If you find that a contract had been formed I would expect you to could clarifywhat service or goods Parking Eye had offered me for the payment demanded. In factI would insist upon knowing why Parking Eye had offered me the right to park inthe first place, since that right had already been made by Marriott Hotels.

What Parking Eye has done instead was nothing other than imposing a penalty fornon compliance to a condition of parking which may or may not have the backingof Marriott Hotels. It would be interesting to see how they would explain thisin a county court.

Since any charge can only be to make good any financial loss to the landowner,then the amount charged is well above the amount of £2.00 so is punitive bynature which is not likely to be in accordance with the remedy for making goodthe landowner's loss. No other loss was incurred. In fact I asked Parking Eyeto explain the reason for the charge so I could consider what the true losswould likely to have been dependent on the legal definition of the imposedcharge, but never received any such explanation.
I have a right to know quite how the charge is made up. This is a basic rightof contract and without suitable explanation I do not believe Parking Eye havemet a sufficiently high enough standard as the principal party in thecontractual application, if indeed they even had the right to make that offerand call it a contract.

My second point of consideration is for the action against the tort oftrespass.

Only one party in this property has the right of action against trespass. Thatis Marriott Hotels. Trespass cannot be committed against an agent or managementcompany. It has no landowner rights. Any civil action should be undertaken onbehalf of the landowner who has been wronged and for the loss incurred.

Parking Eye has suffered no loss as they are unable to claim trespass in theirown name. If they claim to be acting on behalf of their client they have notshown that to be the case since all the signs and the ticket itself tells medifferently. They are taking action independently and require payment to bemade to themselves. There is no mention of any involvement by their client. Theyare therefore unable to justify any charge at all. If they had right ofoccupation or were the landowner they could at least request payment of theamount of £2.00 as recompense for the trespass, however they don't, so theycan't.

The BPA code of practice is deliberately obscure on the definition of the amountto charge. In one paragraph they say that charges should be reasonable andreflect the loss incurred, then in another paragraph it suggests a chargingstructure. It cannot have it both ways. I am mindful that if a court was toproperly assess the charges, it would come down in favour of recompense for theactual loss rather than an amount suggested by a non statutory body with thebest interests of its own members in mind.

The actual wording used within the Code of Practice is as follows:
If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach ofcontract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuinepre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
Another point made in the following paragraph is: If your parking charge is based upon a contractuallyagreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. Since the cost of the additional 30 mins parking upto 2 hours parkingis £2.00, how can a charge of 50 times that be considered as reasonable? Iexpect you to calculate that into your considerations.

I put it to you that the BPA “guidance” is obfuscation on a parliamentaryscale. That useful bit of information makes clear: loss that you suffer,meaning the parking management company which of course has suffered no loss atall. In fact up until the discovery of the non payment Parking Eye had nofinancial interest in the matter at all. Apart from that there can be nopre-estimate unless the known period of overstay, or length of stay withoutpayment is known prior to that consideration. However, it can easily becalculated following the event by reference to the parking payment that hasbeen underpaid or missed completely. Each case will have slightly differentamounts and as such no genuine pre-estimate can therefore be made. The best wayto compare this is by referencing it to a bit of seaweed hanging on a fence andtrying to assess the weather conditions for tomorrow. It is quite franklyabsurd and completely wrong to set a range of tariffs when a GENUINE loss maybe easily quantified following the event.

The suggestion that trespass should also be quantified by a pre-estimate isabsurd. It must have clarity. It must be a proven amount. The BPA sets a codethat has passed no legislative scrutiny but instead offers quasi legalistic explanationsto enhance the income of their members.

Another point to mention in appealagainst this charge is in reference to the The BPA Code of Practice, in whichit states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in allthe essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from theroad ahead.”

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there mustbe adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. Icontend that there is not. Upon returning to the car park after receiving thisunjustified 'charge notice' to check the alleged terms at a later date, I hadto get out of my car to even read the larger font on the signs, and the smallerfont was only readable when standing next to a sign. They were also verybrightly coloured but too busy, confusing and unclear. Everything except the'welcome' heading is too unreadable to be compliant

Lastly...

With further reference to Section 21 of the BPA Code:

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)

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

21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carryout a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make surethat it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you shouldcheck are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.

21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good workingorder. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securelyheld and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage yourANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.

I contend that these cameras in this car park are not compliant and so Irequire Parking Eye to produce evidence to the contrary if they are to rebutthis point, specifically producing to POPLA, contemporaneous records toevidence that the cameras here have received in 2013, regular maintenance andchecks to ensure that the timing and detail of any images captured wereaccurate on the day of this event.

May I now point you to the text at the very top of this appeal. I assume youhave skipped it and continued to the actual appeal points. If you have readthis far, you have accepted a contract for payment of a sum of money. This isexactly the same situation as applies with this parking charge notification.Nothing more or less. It is exactly similar to suggesting that someone whodrives beyond a sign agrees to the imposition of parking charges. You had theopportunity to throw this appeal in the bin without reading it. I hope you getmy reasoning.



In conclusion, I accept that due to the wrong opinion made as tothe terms of the parking arrangements there was an underpayment for a periodrelating to a cost of £2.00 and I will gladly make that payment in full andfinal acceptance of my responsibility if required to, and this appeal has beenrejected. Therefore you may take it outof the contractual charge you have agreed to by reading this far.

Yours sincerely

Coupon-mad

I think you have used too much of that particular template from pepipoo which I find far too rambling IMHO, like I said when I posted it for info only. I don't like that example much as the reader can't see the wood for the trees in that appeal, I can't even make out any BPA Code breaches stated (they may be there but they are buried by waffle!). I did mention it earlier:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So please don't just copy that entire rambling one but copy & paste the useful bits, bearing in mind that was also a PE case where no ticket had been purchased. And there are MUCH BETTER POPLA appeal examples that that around the 2 forums!

How about a mix of this in post #4 (get rid of the 'overstay' sentences etc):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=79545&st=0&gopid=826768

and this:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=21565

You would have to lose the stuff about overstay but the other stuff is relevant.

As you can see, they are more focussed in terms of all the points of appeal. And lose the bit at the top about 'paying £30 for reading it', this is POPLA you are appealing to and they've seen that before on the appeal you copied. And it's a bit needless, with a strong appeal POPLA will allow you to see this cancelled.