Parking Eye - Service Station

nigelbb

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I have relatives in Scotland but none in Europe.

It's even better if the overseas driver was only 17 years old.

Umkomaas

OP - here is a very similar case to yours where PE has lost at POPLA. Will be well worth you having a good read of this ready for eventually preparing your own POPLA appeal.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=81385

Coupon-mad

Kite2010 wrote: »

They probably won't do a court-case involving a service station, can you imagine the uproar?

"Feeling tired when driving? Pull over and get charged £75 when you can't be asked phoning up the 0845 automatic paying number"

I think there must be some that have gone that far among the PE small claims. Certainly I can think of at least 2 LBAs:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80927

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4691063

Kite2010

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think there must be some that have gone that far among the PE small claims. Certainly I can think of at least 2 LBAs:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80927

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4691063

If I ever get into power (:rotfl:), I would make parking at motorway services completely free overnight, keep the 2-hour rule during the day (say 9am to 6pm), but have it enforced by an actual person, not a windows 95 PC

weary_driver

Thanks to all for the advice and links posted. It's taken me longer to go through all this than expected, hence the delay in coming back.

I've decided to go with a strong appeal to PE in the hope this can all be closed off sooner rather than later.

Below is the first draft of the appeal I'm intending on sending to PE, any comments / advice would be gratefully received!

A couple of questions:
1) There is the option to submit the appeal on the PE website, which I'd prefer to sending a physical letter. I'd have to identify myself as the Registered Keeper of the car, which I assume is ok as I'd not be identifying the driver at this stage?
2) Given the appeal points, should I have another section stating I did purchase from 2 outlets in the MSA and then enclose the redacted bank statements proving this? I've not included this so far as I wasn't sure on which appeal grounds this would be relevant.

Thanks!


Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to appeal the above referenced PCN on the points listed below. If you are unwilling to accept the grounds of my appeal, then I require, in accordance with the BPA and POFA regulations, a POPLA code in order for me to take my appeal to POPLA.!

If, on the other hand, after consideration, you decide to cancel the charge, please feel free to do so.

I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1. You do not have the authority of the landowner to levy these charges. I require you to supply me with a copy of the relevant sections of the contract that you 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 your authority to levy charges as some landowner contracts do not, in fact, grant that authority.

2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by ParkingEye Ltd. The loss is punitive contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because ParkingEye Ltd 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). I will expect you to provide evidence to counter this for POPLA to adjudicate should you decline my appeal.

3. I do not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give ParkingEye Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, ParkingEye Ltd'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 appeal.

4. I contend that ParkingEye Ltd 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 appeal and would expect ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence to the contrary.

5. 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 ParkingEye Ltd. I’m happy for POPLA to adjudicate on this matter should you decline my appeal.

6. 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 ParkingEye Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that ParkingEye Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.!

7. The signs upon which ParkingEye Ltd claim a contract has been formed were not seen by the driver and do not comply with the specific Dept for Transport requirements for traffic signs within a Motorway Service Area (MSA) nor with the BPA Code of Practice.
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 ParkingEye Ltd to provide that on the day of the 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 service area car park from a motorway (as appendix B of BPA.) You are clearly in breach on this point alone.!

The BPA code of practise also 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 ParkingEye Ltd to provide to POPLA (should you decline my appeal) 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 positioned at.

8. By determining a Parking Charge is due from the entry and exit times to the the Motorway Service Area (MSA) ParkingEye Ltd are in breach of the Department for Transport statement that drivers are allowed a full two hours free PARKING in a MSA. It is flawed to assume parking time to be equal to the duration of time spent in the whole MSA, as ParkingEye Ltd are failing to take into account time to check tyre pressure, refuel, top up oil or water, rebalance luggage, driving to and finding a parking space, and driving to the exit of the MSA. This is also in contravention of the statement on the received PCN which states "those parking may park for 2 hours 0 minutes for free". I will expect you to provide evidence to show the vehicle PARKED for greater than 2 hours for POPLA to adjudicate should you decline my appeal.

Yours faithfully,
XYZ.

Guys_Dad

That's very good, but please read this thread from post #38 onwards - particularly after post #50.

I would amend your paragraphs 3 - 5 to take into account PE's sharp practice with Witness Statements courtesy of POPLA.

weary_driver

Thanks for getting back to me Guys Dad, and apologies if I'm missing it, but which thread should I look at?

Guys_Dad

weary_driver wrote: »

Thanks for getting back to me Guys Dad, and apologies if I'm missing it, but which thread should I look at?

Sorry - forgot the link. Post #51 is the actual point, but read from #38 onwards and past #51 as well.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4688485

zzzLazyDaisy

I would certainly suggest that you do include copies of the (redacted) proofs of purchase, and also that you make that the first para.

Why? Because proof of spending is one of the few grounds of appeal that PE do uphold on occasions, and also because they have started rejecting what they call 'generic appeals' without a POPLA code, so personalising the appeal helps to rebut that response.

Have a look at my post 21 on this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4689751

weary_driver

Thanks, I'll take that into account regarding personalising the appeal.

Guys Dad, I've had a look over the thread and posts you suggested, just to confirm are you suggesting I add a line to points 3-5 insisting the evidence provided by them needs to originate from the landowner?