Parking Eye - Parking Notice Charge

scoobygilo

ok, sescond draft if you dont mind having a look through please.


POPLA appeal re Parking Eye ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

On the 24th May, 2013, Parking Eye issued a parkingcharge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on theirautomatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in the MarriottHotel, Windsor, Car Park for 1 hour 3 minutes.



My Appeal.

1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to theloss incurred by Parking Eye and is punitive, contravening the Unfair ContractTerms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because Parking Eyehave alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified theiralleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee).


2. In order to try to read the signs, due to their high position and the barelylegible size of the small print, I found them very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any termsParking Eye are relying upon were too small for a driver to see, read or understand.I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signagemap/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practicerequirements. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position,clarity and positioning) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform thedriver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of ExcelParking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).

In reference to the The BPA Code ofPractice, in which it 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

As the registered keeper, I wrote to Parking Eye to appeal the ticket straightaway, but I received an unsuccessful appeal letter back.

3. The Notices I have received make it clear that Parking Eye is dealing withits claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Act. Assuch, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order totake advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registeredkeeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. As already said, the BPA Codeof Practice supports the need for strict compliance and Parking Eye has failedto comply once more, in the wording of their Notice to Keeper, which indicatedthat it requires a payment to be made to them but there is no specificidentification of the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be Parking Eye or someother party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effectthat “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicatethat the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled toknow the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and infailing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, Parking Eye has failed toprovide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce analleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.

4. Parking Eye has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfullyentitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have anyinterest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe thatthe Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with adriver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach ofcontract. I would require POPLA to check whether Parking Eye have provided afull copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier(not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check whether thatcontract specifically enables them to pursue parking charges in the courts, andwhether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPACode of Practice.

The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Respondent should“allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after theparking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” The signage inthe car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this isunreasonable, especially as Parking Eye rely on pictures taken of a vehicle atfirst arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actualparking time). So, there is no evidence that the respondent can produce toindicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit theyare relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated bytheir evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet thestandards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.

5. I further contend that Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence thatthe cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code ofPractice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particularsection of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shownproof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 ofthe Code, in its evidence.



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.

6. The BPA code of practice also says '20.14 When youserve a Notice to Keeper, you must also include information telling the keeperthe ‘reasonable cause’ you had for asking the DVLA for their details.'

The PCN says 'either/or' of 2 different contraventions as ageneric catch-all. This does not comply with the BPA code point 20.14.


I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.


Signed:

Dated:

Coupon-mad

This sentence doesn't make sense (unless you say you visited the car park later to check the signs) and implies who was driving so change it maybe to:

2. [STRIKE]''In order to try to read the signs, [/STRIKE] Due to their high position and the barelylegible size of the small print, the driver found[STRIKE] them[/STRIKE] the signs very hard to read and understand. ''


And double check your original Notice to be sure it doesn't identify PE as 'the creditor' because they did change their notices recently in May. If it does you'd have to lose the whole paragraph which contends that the Notice doesn't use that word.

Apart from that you seem to have covered the bases you can, good luck!

scoobygilo

Thank you. I'll keep you posted with the outcome.

Thanks very much for your help

scoobygilo

So today I received a pack in the post from ParkingEye.
The pack contains all the information they have sent to Popla regarding my case. 33 pages in total and includes, summary, terms and conditions, photographs of my vehicle and signs and a map of where all the signs are.

I take it, I just wait for the POPLA decision now?

Coupon-mad

scoobygilo wrote: »

So today I received a pack in the post from ParkingEye.
The pack contains all the information they have sent to Popla regarding my case. 33 pages in total and includes, summary, terms and conditions, photographs of my vehicle and signs and a map of where all the signs are.

I take it, I just wait for the POPLA decision now?

If you look at other PE cases where the matter is already at POPLA you will see this is normal. Do check all the bumpf and tell POPLA immediately if you want to refute any evidence (such as if the signs are not now the same as their photos).

Have they included a 'witness statement' about their contract? Who has signed it and in what capacity, and on what date (was it signed after the date of your incident)?

scoobygilo

no, no witness statement included or signed

Stroma

Make sure the map is correct, if they are as diligent as highview they will have missed whole sections, or even given an entirely different car park

deflepps

Can I ask what the outcome was?

JonnyRotten

Stroma wrote: »

Just use this if you want, it doesn't matter what you use it will be rejected




Name
Address

Date

Dear Scammers,

In regards to the invoice received with ref number xxxxxx dated xxxxxx, I deny all liability to your company, if you reject this appeal I require within 35 days a popla verification code for me to appeal independently, per Version 2 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I have nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the popla code. If you wish to find out why I reject all liability, pay the £27 plus vat to popla to find out

The appeal will be deemed accepted if there is no popla code on any rejection that you supply within the timeframe stipulated above.

Yours Faithfully

Your name (printed)

Dear All, hey Stroma

I have seen this £27.00 plus VAT to POPLA quoted lots of times on the various threads.

Can I just point you all to this link to do away with this mistaken charge.

Henry Michael Greenslade, the Lead Adjudicator, POPLA, categorically states that POPLA do not charge either the Operator or the motorist for a POPLA appeal. This can be found within this section, POPLA does not charge motorist to appeal, on page 9 of the POPLA Annual Report 2014 at this link http://www.popla.org.uk/AnnualReport.htm.

I have looked at this to use information from it in my own RK court case.

I think that everyone needs to be pointed to the POPLA website and this report when they are starting to action a POPLA appeal.

getting decidedly more nervously JonnyRotten as the wait for the Beavis ruling approaches

Umkomaas

'Paying POPLA £27' is shorthand for the BPA paying overall POPLA costs then charging the operators £27 a pop for each appeal.

Saves POPLA doing lots of debt collection!