Parking Eye and the Range!

spacey2012

Did you only use the name they used to write to you ?

boltonians

Hi, no I replied using my initials and surname.

spacey2012

Not the best move.
Having the correct name is very important if you want to sue anybody.
Other wise everyone would have CCJ'S landing on the mat for Fred Blogs

boltonians

Ah I thought that but when I mentioned they used my incorrect name on here earlier Slithy Tove said to forget it. anyhow they still replied back using my incorrect name!

Coupon-mad

boltonians wrote: »

I have received my rejection letter from Parking eye and they have provided me with a POPLA ref number. They have stated I have not provided sufficient evidence that I did not break the terms and conditions on the signage and that my queries are of a generic nature.

they have then provided answers to FAQ's briefly they state on some points that:-
1) the contract is set of via the signs which are in line with BPA and state winning cases.
2) that parking eye have authority to issue and enforce PCN for contractual breach .
3) that their charge is reasonable as £75 was deemed to be fair by HHJ Hegarty QC in 2011.
4) Parking Eye confirm they have authority as they only operate on private land.

So I now need to build my appeal via POPLA.

I think I would start by pulling their points apart, so go through what that rejection says and 'reject' each point. Such as 'It is irrelevant to my case and to the 'charge' in this car park, for Parking Eye to state that 'a charge is reasonable as £75 was deemed to be fair by HHJ Hegarty QC in 2011'. Then you can go on to make the point that a charge for breach has to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss specific to that car park and any genuine loss would be likely to differ per contravention. To quote a random comment allegedly made by a QC two years ago from an unidentified case is not persuasive nor relevant.

And include your point that in their clearly-generic template rejection letter, they state 'on entrance to the car park there is a sign stating the car park is on private land'. The signs do not state this and there is not a sign at the entrance which is a breach of the signage requirements of the BPA Code of Practice. As the registered keeper you have gone to that car park to check the evidence and there are just a few same-sized signs positioned on a few lampposts within the car park, none of which state that it is private land and all of which are too high and small lettering to be read by a driver in a car on arrival (which is when PE allege a contract might in theory, be made). The lack of signs fail to clearly and unequivocally inform a driver of any consequences for breach.

Try to demolish their generic template letter blow by blow - and also state that an obvious computerised template rejection letter is 'of a generic nature' and shows a disregard for your individual case circumstances, whatever your choice of words in your first appeal - which is another breach of the BPA CoP.

Then include the points as per other POPLA appeals, examples here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/61968045#Comment_61968045


HTH, let's see your draft appeal once you've added everything you can!

boltonians

Here is my appeal to POPLA if you can have a read and advise, thanks


On **/**/** I drove into a car park which is situated in front of three retail stores off the ************, *****. The stores are *******, ****** and *****. I parked there from**:** hours until **:** hours according to the subsequent parking charge notice sent by Parking Eye which I received on 26/06/13 requesting me to pay £100 parking charge.

I challenged the notice as I found the £100 charge to be punitive and unenforceable and that Parking Eye do not have the authority to issue the notice.

I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds

Inadequate Signage
No contract was knowingly entered
Punitive / unfair / Unreasonable charge
Part council owned car park


Inadequate Signage


BPA Operational Requirements Section 18.2 states that the parking operator other than signs telling drivers about the terms and conditions they must also have a standard size of entrance form at the entrance to the parking area.

Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport Guidance.

Parking Eye in their Parking Charge notice state that the signage which is clearly displayed at the entrance and is throughout the car park which I have evidence it is not.

I have since returned to the car park on foot.
The Car park is located off the A58 which is a busy 40mph road two lane road ( as per picture ), as you enter off the main road and into the carpark there are no entrance signs indicating it is a private car park. At the entrance to the car park as shown on the photograph are shop signs were I would expect at the entrance a sign informing me of this.

This contravenes section 18.1 of making the driver aware from the start and 18.2 of failing to have a standard form of entrance sign.

I have discovered within the car park that there are some small signs from Parking Eye on the car park as per pictures which are located on the lamp posts although these are only on one side of the car park outside *** **** store, there are non located similarly on the lamp post outside **** store where I parked my vehicle.

The signs are all of the same size with terms and conditions in very small type at the bottom of the sign, which due to the height of the signs are unreadable. The signs which again are not near the point were I parked are 2 meters off the ground and the terms and conditions are in small type as per my picture next to a tape measure, the height of the terms and conditions font is 5mm.

This contravenes section 18.3 which states signs should be placed throughout the site and that they are conspicuous.

Section 18.7 states they should display the BPA and AOS logos, Parking Eye do not display the AOS logos.

My appeal is not that I entered a private car park but when i did I wasn't made aware of any terms and conditions I would be entering into due to the lack of a entrance signs required under section 18.2 and not being made aware from the start as per 18.1 Furthermore they have also breached section 18.3 as the signs are not located throughout the site.


No contract was knowingly entered and no losses have been demonstrated

There was no contract between the driver and Parking Eye. I did not see any contractual information on any signs, due to not made aware at the start of entering the car park.
When entering the car park off the main road I was not aware of any contract or restrictions.
The requirement for forming a contract such as meeting of minds, agreement and certainty of terms were not satisfied.

As there was no contract then at most I may be guilty of civil trespass, the stores were closed when I entered the car park, no damage was caused to the car park and there was no loss to The Range store by parking whilst they were closed. The parking charge does not reflect the operators loss, it is a profiteering penalty which is not enforceable.


3. Puntive / unfair / unreasonable charge

The following matters are relevant:

The charge parking eye are imposing is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable). The £100 charge is arbitrary and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract or trespass.

The ***** stores allows free parking in their car park up to two hours.By parking whilst the store was closed and being issued with a £100 charge clearly demonstrates an unfair/punitive and unreasonable charge and is therefore unenforceable.

Parking Eye state in there response to my appeal that it has been shown in the court of appeal that a charge of £75 to be a reasonable charge, it is irrelevant to my case and to the charge in this particular car park, a charge for breach has to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss for this particular car park, to compare to a case in 2011 is not persuasive nor relevant.

4 Car park part council owned.

In their response to my appeal, Parking Eye state that they have the authority to issue Parking Charges and that they only operate on land that is not council owned.

Part of the carpark at ******** is owned by Bolton Council, the area owned by the council is the entrance to the car park and also an area along the front of the carpark near to the public foot path.

Can Parking Eye provide the written authority they have from Bolton Council to issue parking charge notices for this car park.

I would like you to uphold my appeal from the points and evidence I have presented.

boltonians

Hello!
Anyone free from the more experienced on here to advise on the above appeal to POPLA before I submit it, thanks.

Dave_TH

boltonians wrote: »

Hello!
Anyone free from the more experienced on here to advise on the above appeal to POPLA before I submit it, thanks.

I would emphasize the entry signage is non compliant and not bother about the rest, with it being out of hours you obviously did not go there to shop so would not have seen the other signs at teh time.

I would also add that PE do not have the authority of the landowner to purse these charges and if they say different you need to see a copy of the contract that specifically states they are.

Guys_Dad

And if part of the car park is not managed by them then is there a clearly defined border between the two areas. Demand a map as their map department is pants. See Parking Prankster.

Coupon-mad

Dave_TH wrote: »

I would emphasize the entry signage is non compliant and not bother about the rest, with it being out of hours you obviously did not go there to shop so would not have seen the other signs at teh time.

I would also add that PE do not have the authority of the landowner to purse these charges and if they say different you need to see a copy of the contract that specifically states they are.

Noooooooooooooo!! Most POPLA appeals (as shown in the sticky thread of course, at the top of the forum) are won on 'PPC didn't show it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss' and 'PPC didn't show a contract with the landowner giving the PPC the right to enforce tickets specifically as far as small claims court'.

No way should a poster be advised to write a POPLA appeal based on ONE point. POPLA appeals and how to win:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

If the OP has sent off a short POPLA appeal he should send further evidence in the post right now to POPLA and the PPC, to be added to his appeal urgently.