PE Fake Ticket received advice needed

springer4

I recently parked in a free car park next to the local hospital for a hospital appointment. I've used this car park in the past with no problems at all. This car park was next to a newly opened Range Store and I was unaware that Parking Eye had installed cameras on the park, and being in a hurry to make my appointment didnt see the new signage or cameras. The store was closed both when I arrived at 0808 and when I left at 0858 am - it opens at 0900. I got a £100 Parking Charge from PE the other day, and then another one yesterday demanding I pay up. What should I do in this case?

Orford

What's the 'offence' they claim you've contravened?

springer4

Unauthorised parking on a private car park outside the store opening hours

Stroma

So what is the loss to the landowner when the shop is closed ? The answer of course that there isn't one, and if they didn't want it used outside of business hours they should put a barrier up!

Anyway if this is England or Wales the advice is to challenge this fake ticket, and if rejected go to popla the independent appeals to get this cancelled. We can help with that for you so don't do it alone.

If outside this area then ignore the scam completely as there is no appeals to popla. The other option is to ignore in England and Wales but its at the risk albeit a small one of them taking you to the small claims. And finally the last option is to fund this scam by paying, you really don't want to do that, do you?

Send this soft appeal below to them to get a popla code, you don't use the same one at popla, this is just generic letter/email to their generic letter to you.






Name
Address

Date

Dear Scammers,

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

The keeper has 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 the keeper rejects all liability, pay the £27 plus vat to popla to find out

The challenge 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)

springer4

Here is my first cut at an appeal in this case and I would be grateful for any feedback for possible omissions or deletions.


POPLA Appeal draft:

On the 17th May, 2013, Parking Eye issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in the Range Dorchester Car Park for 50 minutes. The store was not open at the time of the alleged breach.
The Notices I have received make it clear that Parking Eye is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Act. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. As already said, the BPA Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance and Parking Eye has failed to comply once more, in the wording of their Notice to Keeper, which indicated that it requires a payment to be made to them but there is no specific identification of the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be Parking Eye or some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”
The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, Parking Eye has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.
Parking Eye has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. I would require POPLA to check whether Parking Eye have provided a full copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check whether that contract specifically enables them to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.
I further contend that Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.
Finally, the Operator alleges that, on the date in question, the driver of the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the stay they allege is 'authorised'. Parking Eye are also on record from a letter to a third party which is in the public domain, as having stated in 2013 that all their charges are based on 'breach of contract'. I believe this is also the basis upon which Parking Eye have told the DVLA that they have had 'reasonable cause' to continuously obtain data by a permanent EDI link. So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then Parking Eye cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site and neither can they lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance. Therefore, these 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are in fact an unlawful penalty, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in the case with the same Operator, Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011). Parking Eye will not be able to refute this fact - however many pages of evidence they may send to POPLA - and so this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law.
I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

maninthestreet

PPC are known to read these forums - was it a good idea to post your proposed appeal on here with details of the alleged 'parking conntravention' on a publicly available forum such as this?

Guys_Dad

Did they offer you a discount for payment within 14 days? If so, what was it?

Also, I have made your appeal easier to read for others. You MUST leave spaces and blank limes for people to digest points. I almost gave up.

On the 17th May, 2013, Parking Eye issued a parking charge notice because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on their automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed in the Range Dorchester Car Park for 50 minutes. The store was not open at the time of the alleged breach.

The Notices I have received make it clear that Parking Eye is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA . As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'.

As already said, the BPA Code of Practice supports the need for strict compliance and Parking Eye has failed to comply once more, in the wording of their Notice to Keeper, which indicated that it requires a payment to be made to them but there is no specific identification of the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be Parking Eye or some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

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

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

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

Finally, the Operator alleges that, on the date in question, the driver of the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than the stay they allege is 'authorised'. Parking Eye are also on record from a letter to a third party which is in the public domain, as having stated in 2013 that all their charges are based on 'breach of contract'. I believe this is also the basis upon which Parking Eye have told the DVLA that they have had 'reasonable cause' to continuously obtain data by a permanent EDI link.

So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then Parking Eye cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site and neither can they lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.

I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance. Therefore, these 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are in fact an unlawful penalty, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in the case with the same Operator, Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011).

Parking Eye will not be able to refute this fact - however many pages of evidence they may send to POPLA - and so this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law.


I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

I have made no changes to your original text. Have you also checked their NTK with the BPA COP to ensure that they have provided all of the info required?

springer4

Thanks GD- help much appreciated

In answer to your question

Did they offer you a discount for payment within 14 days? If so, what was it?

Yes the 'charge' was discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days, and was subsequently extended when my appeal was rejected for a further 14 days 'as a gesture of goodwill'.