Please help with parking eye popla appeal.

UNITED4EVA_2

Hi all,

This is the first time i have used this site and the first time i have had a parking charge (Invoice!!!) I parked on the Tower Road carpark in Newquay after a 4 hour drive loaded with kids, parents and luggage!! The kids were screaming to get out so i just drove onto the car park assuming it was a pay and display ticket car park. I got the luggage out to get to the pushchairs and then got the kids dressed into their daytime clothes, put all the luggage back in and then went and purchased a 3 hour ticket. Got back to the car within the 3 hours, got all the luggage out again, put the pushchairs back in and then the luggage back in aswell which took us over the 3 hours limit. When i returned back home at the end of our break low and behold there was a parking eye charge (Invoice ) on my doorstep tellling me i had stayed in the car park for 3 hours and 36 mins. The extra 36 mins was the time it took to get everything in and out of the boot when we arrived and left!!! I did not realise that you are actually charged as soon as you enter and leave the car park not from when you purchase a ticket, it probably says it on some sign somewhere but who reads those when you have got screaming children and have never encountered a con system like this before!!! I have appealed to parking eye (scammers!!) as they are going to charge £60 rising to £100!!! :eek: As expected the appeal has fallen on deaf ears and i have been told that i have to pay the fine or appeal to POPLA. I am going to fight this joke all the way and i wanted some advice on what i can write in the appeal to POPLA, or a letter that someone can write out and inbox me to send to them?? I know most people on here have beat these scammers and know exactly how to word letters for a POPLA appeal. So any opinions or a letter telling me exactly what to write will be a great help. I want to beat these scumbag scammers and i will post all the outcomes as i go along on here to let other people know how things are going and hopefully how to beat these lowlife scum of the earth!!! Thanks for reading this and i look forward to seeing your responses.
P.S I paid £4.80 for my ticket and cant see how £60 - £100 justifies me staying 35 mins over the allocated time!!!!

If or when i win the appeal i hope one day i can buy some of you a few :beer: CHEERS.

Coupon-mad

Try copy & pasting from this example in post #4 that I wrote as SchoolRunMum on pepipoo, except that I think PE's Notices now do name them as 'creditor' (so that's just one appeal point less, out of several)!:

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

and there's this one I wrote for someone yesterday about a camera-issued postal fake PCN (by UKPC) so just remove the last bit about UKPC's website and change the detail to 'PE' plus a few tweaks to suit your case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62229369#Comment_62229369=

Want more to read? Here are several examples of strong POPLA appeals to use as templates to copy & paste, you will see a certain pattern to them!

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...php?p=61968045

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=4610773

...and this blog 'how to win a POPLA appeal' is useful too:

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/popla/

Finally if you want to get your head around where some of the appeal points come from, read this checklist of 'registered keeper liability':

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

...and if you want to check out whether the PPC's signs and other procedures comply with the BPA code of practice then Google it and read it if you can stand any more reading about parking!

UNITED4EVA_2

Hi Coupon-mad,
Just wondered if you thought this reply would be ok ive took out the bits about the creditor, is there anything else you think i should add?? Thanks for the previous reply.

POPLA appeal re Parking Eye ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice (ticket) also exceeded the appropriate amount.

I am the registered keeper of the above car and I visited the car park after receiving the initial order to try to read the signs, however due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, I found them very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any terms Parking 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 signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, clarity and positioning) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts,)

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.

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 the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” The signage in the car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this is unreasonable, especially as Parking Eye rely on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence that the respondent can produce to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit they are relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of 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 unlawful attempts at penalties, 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.


Signed:

Dated:

UNITED4EVA_2

Hi,

I've added a few extras, how does this look now??? Is there anything else i should add?? Thanks for all your help, off to bed now!!
POPLAappeal re Parking Eye ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

I am not liable for the parkingcharge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge'notice (ticket) also exceeded the appropriate amount.

I am the registered keeper of the above car and I visited the car park afterreceiving the initial order to try to read the signs, however due to their highposition and the barely legible size of the small print, I found them very hardto read and understand. I contend that the signs and any terms Parking Eye arerelying upon were too small and inappropriately positioned for a driver to see,read or understand therefore no contract can have been entered into. I requestthat POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on thispoint and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. I contendthat the signs in that car park (wording, position, clarity and positioning) donot comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and anyconsequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd vMartin Cutts, 2011)

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

There is no contract between Parking Eye andmyself but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in theUnfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

Unfair Terms
5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individuallynegotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of goodfaith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligationsarising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.


(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having beenindividually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumerhas therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' failsto meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA COP and also fails tocomply with the CPUTR 2008, the UTCCR 1999, the Equality Act 2010 and basiccontract law.



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.

I further contend that Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence that thecameras 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.

Finally, the Operator alleges that, on the date in question, the driver of thevehicle 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 partywhich is in the public domain, as having stated in 2013 that all their chargesare based on 'breach of contract'. I believe this is also the basis upon whichParking Eye have told the DVLA that they have had 'reasonable cause' tocontinuously obtain data by a permanent EDI link. It is also clear from the following wording of theNotice to Keeper that they are alleging breach of contract rather thanrequesting payment of an agreed charge: "By either not purchasing theappropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer thanpermitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage,the Parking Charge is now payable". So they are clearly attempting to enforce this charge underparagraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validatethis argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal whichevidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in thisparticular car park for this particular 'contravention'. Since it is a free carpark with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' thenParking Eye cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they areoperating at a permanent loss at this site and neither can they lawfullyinclude their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. Icontend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (priorto starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared orconsidered in advance.

Therefore, these 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are in fact unlawfulattempts at penalties, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services vHetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OB Services v Thurlow (review, February2011) and in the case with the same Operator, Parking Eye v Smith(Manchester County Court December 2011). Parking Eye will not be able torefute this fact - however many pages of evidence they may send to POPLA - andso this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.


Signed:

Dated:

Guys_Dad

It is not a free car park, according to your first post. Your appeal contradicts this.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Remove the part about the ticket removing the approiate amount

UNITED4EVA_2

Hi,

Many thanks for the replys, Guys Dad do you mean i should remove this part?

Since it is a free carpark with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' thenParking Eye cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they areoperating at a permanent loss at this site and neither can they lawfullyinclude their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. Icontend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (priorto starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared orconsidered in advance.

Kirkbyinfurnesslad, do you mean i should remove this? If so why?

I am not liable for the parkingcharge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge'notice (ticket) also exceeded the appropriate amount.

Do you think it will be ok to send once these are removed and is there anything else you think i should add??

Thanks in advance, really glad i found this site.

Coupon-mad

Yep you need to get rid of the paragraph about it being a free car park but I think you have got an even stronger case to make because you purchased a P&D ticket and did arrive back to your car within the 3 hours you had paid for.

But I would leave in the first paragraph 'I am not liable for the parkingcharge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice (ticket) also exceeded the appropriate amount.' That's all OK, then have this as your paragraphs after that (extra paragraphs added to explain your position but without naming the driver):

'On arrival the driver could see it was a pay and display car park - although the detail on the signs was simply not visible/readable from the car when driving in. The car was duly parked as soon as a space was available, then as this is a day-trip tourist area and there were young children in the car who had been asleep for much of the 4 hour journey, there was a reasonable burst of activity needed simply to help the toddlers to alight safely and to organise them and their paraphernalia. This involved two adults getting them out of car seats and a quick change into their daytime clothes and applying suncream, putting on hats and sandals.

Then in addition the family's luggage had to be temporarily moved out of the boot in order to get to the children's pushchairs. The driver then put all the luggage back in, secured the car and without undue delay went straight to purchase a 3 hour ticket which was displayed and the time noted.

When the family arrived back it was still within the 3 hours on the P&D ticket, so the family then got back in, car seats were secured, the luggage had to be got out again to put the pushchairs back in, and then the luggage was replaced into the boot as well. Then the family left without once considering that they could possibly have breached an unknown rule over and above the P&D ticket time.

The driver had parked within the time allowed on the P&D ticket at a cost of £4.80 which I would say to POPLA is the only tangible evidence of any possible 'contract'; formed by reading the instructions on the machine and paying the money as consideration in exchange for a time-bound ticket as acceptance that the car is authorised to park. There was no breach whatsoever by purchasing a 3 hour ticket in good faith after no undue delay, no sitting in the car, just normal but busy arrival and alighting activity in safely transferring young children to buggies, ready for a day out. The only restriction the driver should have to consider is to duly return to the car within the time stated on any P&D ticket, which was indeed the case.

If Parking Eye wish to start the timed restriction on arrival then as well as clearer signs they would simply need a barrier and ticket machine at car window level at the entrance and another at the exit. I believe that for the Operator to combine 'pay-on-foot' manual P&D machines within the busy car park with a completely separate camera system at the entrance and exit is simply not compatible and is unfair in law. '

halibut2209

I would offer advice, but you're a United fan

(But seriously, do what Coupon-mad says )

Guys_Dad

UNITED4EVA wrote: »

Hi,

Many thanks for the replys, Guys Dad do you mean i should remove this part?

Since it is a free carpark with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' thenParking Eye cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they areoperating at a permanent loss at this site and neither can they lawfullyinclude their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. Icontend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (priorto starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared orconsidered in advance.
.

Your opening post said " I got the luggage out to get to the pushchairs and then got the kids dressed into their daytime clothes, put all the luggage back in and then went and purchased a 3 hour ticket."

That seems, to me, to contradict what you included in the extract above. Something needs changing.

UNITED4EVA_2

Hi all,

Thanks for all the responses, i have added the bits that coupon mad said and taken out the bit about the free car park that Guys Dad said. Do you think i am finally ready to submit this appeal now and try and add another nail into the coffin of these car park cowboys???

Oh, halibut2209 i am not a united fan i am just stating that we are all UNITED4EVA in trying to beat these scumbags!!! (Thats my excuse anyway!!!)