Parking eye pcn

Mido

Thanks all i do appreciate your feedback. see below for the ammended complaint letter to PE.

Appeals Dept Parking Eye
P O Box 565 Chorley
PR6 6HT

Date XXth XXX 2013


RE: ParkingEye INVOICE REF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


In reference to the speculative invoice REF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX dated XXth XXX 2013, the keeper denies all liability to your company.

The Keeper wish to appeal on the basis that ParkingEye do not have the authority of the landowner to levy these charges. The Keeper require Parking Eye to supply a copy of the relevant sections of the contract that Parking eye are working under in order for The Keeper to check (a) the contract is, in fact, with the landowner whose details have been supplied to me by the council and (b) in order for The Keeper to check the limit of Parking Eye’s authority to levy charges as some landowner contracts do not, in fact, grant that authority.

In addition, after checking your signage and the BPA guidelines (appendix B: 18.2, 18.3, 18.4) The Keeper believe that they are deficient.

The Keeper trust now that you have received this complain letter, you will review the charge as it would be a punitive charge and cancel this invoice,

If Parking Eye reject the complaint above, then The Keeper require, in accordance with the BPA and POFA regulations, a POPLA code in order for The Keeper to take is appeal to POPLA

The Keeper reserve the right to raise additional points of appeal if this matter proceed to POPLA stage, as well as complaining to your client, the Retail Park Management and the landowner and the Store Managers too so they are alerted to the reason why the keeper is minded not to return if this is how genuine customers are treated.


The Keeper

XX XXXXX

Mido

Update. My wife whose is the registered keeper of the car just notfied me that she sent an email to PE yesterday 22nd July telling the that l was the driver of the car on the day of the incident.
1, Should l still sent the complaint letter as detailed above or should l now refer to myself in the complain since PE has been notified that i am the driver.
2, should l wait for PE to write to me as the Driver before sending the letter.
You valued advice would be appreciated. (:

Guys_Dad

Mido wrote: »

Update. My wife whose is the registered keeper of the car just notfied me that she sent an email to PE yesterday 22nd July telling the that l was the driver of the car on the day of the incident.
1, Should l still sent the complaint letter as detailed above or should l now refer to myself in the complain since PE has been notified that i am the driver. See revised version below
2, should l wait for PE to write to me as the Driver before sending the letter. Yes.
You valued advice would be appreciated. (:

Revised

Appeals Dept Parking Eye
P O Box 565 Chorley
PR6 6HT

Date XXth XXX 2013


RE: ParkingEye INVOICE REF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


In reference to the speculative invoice REF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX dated XXth XXX 2013, I confirm that I was the driver at the time. However, at this stage I deny all liability to your company.

I wish to appeal for the following reasons.

1. I do not believe that Parking Eye have the authority of the landowner to levy these charges. I require Parking Eye to supply a copy of the relevant sections of the contract that Parking eye are working under in order for me to check (a) the contract is, in fact, with the landowner whose details have been supplied to me by the council and (b) in order for me to check the limit of Parking Eye’s authority to levy charges as some landowner contracts do not, in fact, grant that authority.

2. In addition, after checking your signage and the BPA guidelines (appendix B: 18.2, 18.3, 18.4) I believe that they are deficient and do not meet the minimum requirement of the BPA.

I trust now that you have received this challenge, you will review the charge and cancel this invoice,

If Parking Eye reject the challenge above, then I require, in accordance with the BPA and POFA regulations, a POPLA code in order for me to take this appeal to POPLA. This should be sent within the POPLA timescales as on their web site, currently 35 days.

I reserve the right to raise additional points of appeal if this matter proceeds to POPLA stage, as well as complaining to your client, the Retail Park Management and the landowner and the Store Managers too so they are alerted to the reason why the keeper is minded not to return if this is how genuine customers are treated.


XXXXXXXXXXX (Name but do not sign)

Mido

Thnak you very Much GuysDad i do appreciate your forthright feedback.

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep but that's the POPLA appeal of course and for the moment the OP just needs an initial one for PE.

There is nothing to be lost & everything to be gained by banging in with the big guns right from the off. That POPLA appeal will do just as well as an appeal to PE & may even frighten them off enough to cancel the charge immediately once they know that they are bound to lose at POPLA.

Coupon-mad

Mido wrote: »

Update. My wife whose is the registered keeper of the car just notfied me that she sent an email to PE yesterday 22nd July telling the that l was the driver of the car on the day of the incident.
1, Should l still sent the complaint letter as detailed above or should l now refer to myself in the complain since PE has been notified that i am the driver.
2, should l wait for PE to write to me as the Driver before sending the letter.
You valued advice would be appreciated. (:

I would actually wait for the Notice to Driver to arrive before responding.

nigelbb wrote: »

There is nothing to be lost & everything to be gained by banging in with the big guns right from the off. That POPLA appeal will do just as well as an appeal to PE & may even frighten them off enough to cancel the charge immediately once they know that they are bound to lose at POPLA.

I share your view that a strong first appeal is a good idea but didn't want to confuse the OP with a POPLA appeal, worded for POPLA.

Mido

Hi All,

My friends who got the same PCN Just got this reply from PE in response to my complaint letter.

"Your enquiry is of a generic nature and contains a number of queries we have seen before. As such we believe it is covered by our answers to FAQs. The y then listed a number of FAQs.

See below a copy of the complaint letter sent to them.

Appeals Dept Parking Eye
P O Box 565 Chorley
PR6 6HT


Date xxth xxx 2013


RE: Parking Eye INVOICE REF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


In reference to the speculative invoice REF xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx dated xxth xxx 2013, the keeper denies all liability to your company.

The Keeper wish to appeal on the basis that ParkingEye do not have the authority of the landowner to levy these charges. The Keeper require Parking Eye to supply a copy of the relevant sections of the contract that Parking eye are working under in order for The Keeper to check (a) the contract is, in fact, with the landowner whose details have been verified at the Land Registry and (b) in order for The Keeper to check the limit of Parking Eye’s authority to levy charges as some landowner contracts do not, in fact, grant that authority.

After checking your signage and the BPA guidelines (appendix B: 18.2, 18.3, 18.4) The Keeper believe that they are deficient.


The Keeper trust now that you have received this complain letter, you will review the charge as it would be a punitive charge and cancel this invoice,

If Parking Eye reject the complaint above, then The Keeper require, in accordance with the BPA and POFA regulations, a POPLA code in order for The Keeper to take is appeal to POPLA

The Keeper reserve the right to raise additional points of appeal if this matter proceed to POPLA stage, as well as complaining to your client, the Retail Park Management and the landowner and the Store Managers too so they are alerted to the reason why the keeper is minded not to return if this is how genuine customers are treated.



The Keeper


Is this the new tactic PE are using to aviod POPLA appeal? what how should l respond to their letter.

Mido

Hi Guys, PE have refused my complaint but have send me the POPLA appeal form. See my appeal below. Please can l have yout thoughts before l send it off.
Thanks.

RE: POPLA Appeal for PARKINEYE INVOICE REF XXXXXXXXXXX

This is my appeal against the invoice (Parking Charge Notice) issued by Parking eye with REF XXXXXXXXXXX on the XX July 2013 at South Mimms Motorway Services, as my initial appeal to PARKING EYE was rejected.
On the XXX August 2013 I received a rejected challenge notification from PARKING EYE, dated XX/XX/XX. See copy of the rejection letter attached.

1. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by PARKING EYE. The loss is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because PARKING EYE have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee). Any claimed estimated loss is only to be as a result of my alleged contravention. Whereas the cost of going to the DVLA, stamps and stationery are a true cost or loss specifically incurred in relation to this alleged contravention, any other claimed amount is a cost attributed to running the business and would still be exactly the same if l had been elsewhere on the day in question.

According to a Recent POPLA decision. POPLA concluded that:
“The Operator submitted that the charge is based upon the cost of enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administrative staff) and the charge was agreed by the land owner and specified on site signage.

However, this does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the parking contract. The loss specified by the Operator is the cost of providing parking enforcement at the site. In other words, were no breach to have occurred the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same.

Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.”


2. I do not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give PARKING EYE any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, PARKING EYE’s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of your charge? I’m happy to let POPLA adjudicate on this should you decline my second appeal

3. I contend that PARKING EYE are only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS -v- HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model. I’m happy to let POPLA adjudicate on this should you decline my second appeal and would expect PARKING EYE to provide evidence to the contrary

4. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to PARKING EYE. I’m happy for POPLA to adjudicate on this matter should you decline my second appeal and expect PARKING EYE to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code


5. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between PARKING EYE and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that PARKING EYE can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.

6. The BPA code of practice states the following.
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about
the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a 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 on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.

28.2 Entrance signs, located at the entrance to the car park, must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions which they must be aware of. Entrance signs must meet minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and follow Department for Transport guidance. Industry-accepted sign designs and guidance on how to use the signs are in Appendix B.

I would expect PARKING EYE to provide that on the day of the alleged offence, there was the appropriate signage in place, and that the appropriate signage met the minimum requirements as set out by the BPA code in relation to minimum font size of entering a car park from a designated 30mph limit (as appendix B of BPA.) Parking Eye are clearly in breach on this point.
8. The BPA code of practise states the following:
Section 18.3
You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

I will expect PARKING EYE to provide to POPLA a record of where all signs are and also prove they meet the minimum requirements of 450mm x 450mm. I would contest that the current signs are not “easy to see or read” due to their small font and height they are attached to the walls.


9. Appendix E of the BPA code of Practice “ticket issued by hand” states “On day 29 you may request details from the DVLA” The Parking charge notice issued to me states under part 3 “If no payment is made within 14 days, vehicle details will be obtained from the DVLA”


This breaches the BPA code of Practice and is also confusing to the customer as the BPA rules states one process, where as the parking charge notice states another.

Guys_Dad

Under your paras re the contract with the landowner, you may refer to the Parking Eye -v- Somerfield case [2012] EWCA Civ 1338

Although Parking Eye won against the supermarket, there is a relevant paragraph that you can use to explain what POPLA needs to see the contract. The relevant paragraph 1s 57.

.(57) ......The principle relied on by the appellant

Somerfield's illegality defence is based on the manner in which it was intended that part of the contract should be performed. The contract was not unlawful in itself. It was capable of being performed in a lawful manner and it was not entered into as a way of achieving an unlawful objective. The feature relied upon in support of the illegality defence was that the contract provided for ParkingEye to send out letters of demand to customers who overstayed and the third pro forma letter was deceptive. It represented that ParkingEye had the authority and intention to commence legal proceedings if payment was not received within the stipulated time limit, whereas in truth it was agreed that Somerfield should decide whether to take such proceedings and it was most unlikely in reality that Somerfield would decide to do so.

You have a reasonable request to have the contract examined to see if such a restraint exists in your case.

Coupon-mad

Didn't see any paragraph putting them to proof about their compliance (or not) with the ANPR section of the BPA CoP? Nor a clear paragraph stating that the alleged 'overstay' doesn't prove how long the vehicle was parked for, and seeing as there is a petrol station on site and there were queues (weren't there!!) then a PPC still has to allow a driver the full 2 hours parking/rest period as demanded by the Dept for Transport. Pics of a car driving in and then out do not show that a person actually parked and rested for more than the 2 hours they are allowed by the government.

Look at all the links here for anything you have missed:

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

Also then search the parking forum for the acronym 'MSA' and read any other MSA (Motorway Service Area) thread, there is at least one with a POPLA appeal on it specific to an MSA. There are extra requirements for MSA signs and you will find advice about that from me on other MSA threads. The signs do not just have to comply with the BPA CoP. They must also comply with the TRSGD 2002 - Google it - which they don't! And from the evidence I have found (see other MSA threads, I've posted it several times before), they would have to hold authority from the Dept for Transport or Highways Agency for using any MSA traffic sign which doesn't comply, and any sign on-site, aimed at drivers, is IMHO certainly a 'traffic sign'.

Nice first draft by the way, shows you have read around the forum already, which many don't do even when given links!