Parking Eye

Guys_Dad

Shame you have sent in your appeal, although you can follow it up with another referring them to the British Parking Association Guidelines
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_CodeofPractice_2013_v1.pdf

I quote:-

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.

13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace
period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask
what it is.

You should point out that their camera captures you when you enter the car park, not when you actually park and when you leave, not when you stop parking.

Tell them that you will be appealing via POPLA if they do not rescind the ticket and you will be requesting their answer to 13.3. If they don't agree, send the POPLA form and code

That will be the main plank of your defence at POPLA, so you need to see what the signs and parking ticket you got actually say.

photography_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A POPLA appeal DOES need to be like that to win - full of detail and strong legal points. But don't copy every bit of it because (for instance) I suspect the postal 'ticket' you just received does state PE as 'creditor' now as they've changed their wording I think? Also, that version was written specifically for that poster so the detail would need changing of course.

current wording on the PE PCN NtK (17/05/13) is

...the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the creditor)

shout if you want a current version Coupon-mad

best regards

Coupon-mad

photography wrote: »

current wording on the PE PCN NtK (17/05/13) is

...the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the creditor)

shout if you want a current version Coupon-mad

best regards

Thanks, I may need a look at one if you want to pm a pic! Knew it had changed.

photography_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Thanks, I may need a look at one if you want to pm a pic! Knew it had changed.

pm sent to you

Stroma

photography wrote: »

pm sent to you

hmm could you send me a link as well ? thanks

trisontana

I'm confused. I thought that the only loss that can be claimed for is that suffered by the landowner. So why are PE claiming they are the "creditor"? Does that mean they will pass on to the landowner any money they receive from the motorist?

Coupon-mad

trisontana wrote: »

I'm confused. I thought that the only loss that can be claimed for is that suffered by the landowner. So why are PE claiming they are the "creditor"? Does that mean they will pass on to the landowner any money they receive from the motorist?

It's a good point and one that I think was mentioned in Parking Eye v Somerfield, that 'most of the income was due to Somerfield' or some such wording from the judge.

photography_2

Stroma wrote: »

hmm could you send me a link as well ? thanks

drop me a pm with an email Stroma

best regards

Guys_Dad

trisontana wrote: »

I'm confused. I thought that the only loss that can be claimed for is that suffered by the landowner. So why are PE claiming they are the "creditor"? Does that mean they will pass on to the landowner any money they receive from the motorist?

That is not the case. If you think about it, there would have been no cases won by PPCs in court (unless they were the landowner, such as some NCP sites).

The POFA mentions "landholders" as distinct from "landowners" and, of course, if a valid contract exists between landowner and PPC, and all other things being ship-shape, then a PPC can win a court case.

However, as we know, they are rarely ship shape and the contracts are badly written!!!

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The POFA mentions "landholders" as distinct from "landowners" and, of course, if a valid contract exists between landowner and PPC, and all other things being ship-shape, then a PPC can win a court case.

POFA does not mention "landholders" it is in fact the DfT Guidance document that conjured up this neologism defined as

This guide uses the term “landholder” to mean either a private landowner or an agent (or agents) properly authorised by the landowner to manage and enforce parking on the land in question.

It has no validity in law. There are people who have rights over land such as tenants and leaseholders so e.g. they can sue for trespass but a landlord's agent cannot.