Parking Eye

xs11ax

Hi Guys

My dad has just received notification from Parking Eye for £100 fine. However this is the first thing he has received from them- was expecting £60 fine to come across, any advice on what he should do from here? Would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Hovite_2

Yes, he should appeal on whatever basis he likes - didn't see the signs, thinks the charge is unreasonable etc. Keep it simple and in his own words - what he's after is the POPLA code. Once he gets it come back here for help.

xs11ax

Thank you, I will ask him to do it this week- they are actually asking for £60, stating it would rise to £100 if it remains unpaid.

Umkomaas

xs11ax wrote: »

Thank you, I will ask him to do it this week- they are actually asking for £60, stating it would rise to £100 if it remains unpaid.

As does every parking company on every PCN they dish out. Designed to panic you into thinking you've just been offered a 'bargain'.

With help from here your Dad won't be paying anything. But you will have to do a bit of work for him, but we will help guide you.

xs11ax

Hi Guys

So we appealed against the charge to Parking Eye. Surprise surprise it was rejected and now my dad has the POPLA code.
I have been reading around on various forums- there is a lot of advice and thinking about appealing on the following points:

- I have not been provided with any evidence that Parking Eye have authority from the landowner to issue tickets

- I contend that the fine is not a genuine pre estimate of costs, and that Parking Eye has failed to demonstrate that this is, in contradiction to the BPA Ltd Code of Practice which requires the company to be able to demonstrate that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. I would contend that staying an additional 20 minutes on land where there is no charge to does not amount to £60 worth of losses, and would like to see the evidence if this is the case. I would like to see evidence of how overstaying in the car park causes Parking Eye a loss.

What do you guys think?

Thanks

Umkomaas

xs11ax wrote: »

Hi Guys

So we appealed against the charge to Parking Eye. Surprise surprise it was rejected and now my dad has the POPLA code.
I have been reading around on various forums- there is a lot of advice and thinking about appealing on the following points:

- I have not been provided with any evidence that Parking Eye have authority from the landowner to issue tickets

- I contend that the fine is not a genuine pre estimate of costs, and that Parking Eye has failed to demonstrate that this is, in contradiction to the BPA Ltd Code of Practice which requires the company to be able to demonstrate that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. I would contend that staying an additional 20 minutes on land where there is no charge to does not amount to £60 worth of losses, and would like to see the evidence if this is the case. I would like to see evidence of how overstaying in the car park causes Parking Eye a loss.

What do you guys think?

Thanks

Good start. You do need to add some more points to ensure there's no wriggle room for POPLA.

Signage - see BPA CoP section 18 and Appendix B here

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/609_AOS_CoP_June_2013_update.pdf

PE paper trail, is it PoFA Schedule 4 compliant - see here

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

You will also want to include reference to the court case that PE lost just last week. See here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4800540

HTH

xs11ax

Thanks Umkomass. So I have added reference to that case and some stuff about the signage, also getting helping from the Pepipoo site, this is what I have intended as my appeal, would be grateful for any thoughts from anyone:-

The respondent alleges that, on , the driver of the vehicle registration number was parked in breach of the terms and conditions and as such a Parking Charge is due.
Whilst the respondents have named themselves as the creditor, they have not provided any evidence to substantiate this.
It is well known in the area that the Respondent has previously indicated that the calculation of the parking charge is based on an average ‘loss’ to the various retails units at the retail park, therefore those retail outlets would be the actual creditor. It is also known that in recent appeals considered by POPLA, the Respondent has failed to provide any evidence that it is the ‘creditor’ entitled to recover monies from a driver.

- I have not been provided with any evidence that Parking Eye have authority from the landowner to issue tickets. That is to say that it has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, it is the properly appointed agent of the landowner or has been properly authorised by the landowner to recover unpaid parking charges from a driver. Accordingly, the Respondent should be required to provide a copy (to both POPLA and myself) of;
1- Its contract with the owner of the land on which the car park is situated
2- Evidence of the land ownership of the party with whom the Respondent has contracted
3- A ‘Purchase Order’ incorporating this car park into that contract in the event that that contract is a framework agreement
Within, say, the next fourteen days. Alternatively, if the Respondent is the owner of the land then it should evidence that ownership within the same time period. If the Respondent is unable or unwilling to do so then I request that it should not be permitted to offer any evidence in this appeal.
- I would like to refer to the recent case at Brentford County Court, Claim No. 3QT62646, held 23rd October 2013, where a claim by Parking Eye against the defendant was struck out by the judge, on the basis that Parking Eye did not own the land.

- I contend that the fine is not a genuine pre estimate of costs, and that Parking Eye has failed to demonstrate that this is, in contradiction to the BPA Ltd Code of Practice which requires the company to be able to demonstrate that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss. I would contend that staying an additional 20 minutes on land where there is no charge to does not amount to £60 worth of losses, and would like to see the evidence if this is the case. I would like to see evidence of how overstaying in the car park causes Parking Eye a loss.


- I believe that the charge is punitive and it goes against the BPA Code of Practice and is unenforceable and the Respondent has not provided any evidence as to how and why this parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is not sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case.
- The signage states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a ‘failure to comply with the terms of the parking. This wording indicated clearly that parking charge represents damages for a breach of parking contract. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

- I contend that the signage is unclear, inadequate and non-compliant. The height at which they are set and the size of the print make them very hard to read and understand. The sign at the entrance is obstructed by a tree, and in May the leaves would exacerbate this problem. I would request that Parking Eye demonstrate that their signage complies with the BPA Code of Practice requirements.


- The Respondent uses ANPR cameras at the entrance/exit of the retail park. The cameras only record the time that a vehicle enters the car park and the time it leaves. They do not record the actual parking event not the point at which the contract to park is entered into. It does not take into consideration the fact that it would take time for drivers to find a parking space, then further time to move out of the car park due to obstructions etc on the road, such as other traffic. Due to this there can be quite some time before the ANPR captures the exit image. The Respondent’s claim based on the ANPR photos is therefore flawed and cannot be relied upon, on a balance of probabilities, to prove its case.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed. In the event that POPLA is minded not to grant the appeal then, because the Respondent failed to provide any evidence of it’s entitlement to recover parking charges until this stage, it is requested that it be ordered that the Respondent be not allowed to recover any more than the originally claimed sum.


Thanks

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't call PE the Respondent. To POPLA assessors they are 'the Operator'. How about:



POPLA CODE XXXXXXXXXX
VEHICLE REGISTRATION XXXXXXX

I am the driver of the car and my appeal will show that I am not liable for the parking charge as the vehicle was not improperly parked.

[STRIKE] Whilst the respondents have named themselves as the creditor, they have not provided any evidence to substantiate this. It is well known in the area that the Respondent has previously indicated that the calculation of the parking charge is based on an average ‘loss’ to the various retails units at the retail park, therefore those retail outlets would be the actual creditor. It is also known that in recent appeals considered by POPLA, the Respondent has failed to provide any evidence that it is the ‘creditor’ entitled to recover monies from a driver[/STRIKE].

NO LEGAL STANDING TO MAKE THIS CHARGE (LANDOWNER CONTRACT)
- I have not been provided with any evidence that Parking Eye have authority from the landowner to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park. The Operator is not the landowner; they are merely agents of the landowner and have shown no evidence that they have the legal standing to recover a parking charge in their own name as creditor in the courts. ParkingEye are required to provide a copy (to both POPLA and myself) of the contract with the owner of the land on which the car park is situated. A witness statement will not be admissable; the actual contemporaneous contract must be shown to be BPA Code compliant, if this Operator is to show they have the legal standing required.

[STRIKE]2- Evidence of the land ownership of the party with whom the Respondent has contracted
3- A ‘Purchase Order’ incorporating this car park into that
contract in the event that that contract is a framework agreement
Within, say, the next fourteen days. Alternatively, if the Respondent is the owner of the land then it should evidence that ownership within the same time period. If the Respondent is unable or unwilling to do so then I request that it should not be permitted to offer any evidence in this appeal.[/STRIKE]

I would like to refer to the recent case at Brentford County Court, Claim No. 3QT62646, held 23rd October 2013, where a claim by Parking Eye against the defendant was struck out by the judge, on the basis that Parking Eye did not own the land.

NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
The signage states that a parking charge notice would be issued for a 'failure to comply' with the terms of the parking. This wording suggests [STRIKE]indicated clearly [/STRIKE] that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of parking contract. I contend that the fine is not a genuine pre estimate of [STRIKE]costs[/STRIKE] loss. [STRIKE], and that Parking Eye has failed to demonstrate that this is, in contradiction to the BPA Ltd Code of Practice which requires the company to be able to demonstrate that the charge is a genuine pre estimate of loss.[/STRIKE] I would contend that allegedly staying an additional 20 minutes on land where there is no charge to does not amount to £100 worth of losses. [STRIKE]and would like to see the evidence if this is the case. I would like to see evidence of how overstaying in the car park causes Parking Eye a loss.[/STRIKE] POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.


[STRIKE]- I believe that the charge is punitive and it goes against the BPA Code of Practice and is unenforceable and the Respondent has not provided any evidence as to how and why this parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is not sufficient to simply list the names of previous cases without applying them to this case. -. Accordingly, the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss.[/STRIKE]

UNCLEAR SIGNAGE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE
- I contend that the signage is unclear, inadequate and non-compliant. The height at which they are set and the size of the print make them very hard to read and understand. The sign at the entrance is obstructed by a tree, and in May the leaves would exacerbate this problem. [STRIKE]I would request that[/STRIKE] Parking Eye must demonstrate that their signage complied with the BPA Code of Practice requirements and that the first sign was not obscured nor too high to be seen from a driver's viewpoint on that day at the entrance (breach of Appendix .

NO EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 (ANPR)
The Operator uses ANPR cameras at the entrance/exit of the retail park. I have had no evidence that ParkingEye have complied with the BPA Code of Practice requirements for ANPR issued tickets. Section 21.1 through to 21.5 must be fully complied with and documentary evidence produced by the Operator in terms of these particular cameras at this car park on that day, and relating to this particular parking incident.



I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

[STRIKE]In the event that POPLA is minded not to grant the appeal then, because the
Respondent failed to provide any evidence of it’s entitlement to recover parking charges until this stage, it is requested that it be ordered that the Respondent be not allowed to recover any more than the originally claimed sum.[/STRIKE]

Guys_Dad

You can also add that the PPC should provide some proof that planning permission for the car park included that there would be a maximum free parking period with charges for a overstaying as if such consent is not in force then any charges are invalid.

xs11ax

Many thanks for that guys, I'll write that up and send it today.

Really grateful for all the advice