PakingEye ticket for obstruction

kennyj50

Hi, I'm new here. Some advice appreciated.
My sister parked in a retail park, shops are around the edge of a large parking area. Signs say free parking for 4 hours. She parked in a bay outside of Boots, there were no road markings on the bay in question. No specific signage relating to the bay. Only generic signs indicating that parking should be within marked bays with no parking on double yellow lines or in loading bays. All of the other bays around the perimeter either have yellow lines or are marked for loading.
She returned to her car and had a PCN. Reasons given

1.Abused patron parking
2. Obstructive parking.

Since the incident they have now marked this bay as a pick up point only.

Luckily I have photos before and after.

I wrote as per this site advice and refused to pay. They rejected the appeal and have issued a POPLA code.

I am now formulating POPLA appeal for her.

Has anyone any experience of a ticket on these grounds?

Can anyone point me in the direction of a template I can use/adapt for the POPLA appeal?

Many Thanks for any help.

Guys_Dad

What is "Abused patron parking?" Did she leave site?

Post up the pictures so we can see the problem.

Stroma

And please don't do a popla appeal alone, we can help you with the wording to get a win. It sounds as if one of the shop's employees gave you this fake ticket on your car. That is the notice to driver, did you wait until they wrote to you, or did you whack of an appeal straight away?

kennyj50

The ticket is genuine ParkingEye. I have code to appeal to POPLA

I've compiled the appeal. Can anyone please run an eye over it to see if I there are any glaring omissions. Any comments would be appreciated........



Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA appeal re ParkingEye ticket number *******

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appeal summarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded the appropriate amount.

Introduction

On the morning of the **** I drove my car into the *****. I needed to call into **** the chemist to obtain a prescription. This retail park has shops on a number of sides around the perimeter. There are a number of bays around the perimeter (I would say in excess of 6 bays). At the time I parked there were no road markings or signage specific to the bay. See below for full details. I was parked there for a short period, I would say approximately 20 mins. Other cars were parked in the bay. I visit this park fairly regularly and would say that vehicles always used this bay as it is close to the entrance to Boots the chemist.

Detailed Reasons

I was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. The ticket is somewhat lacking in detail but appears to indicate two reasons;

Firstly, “obstruction” and secondly “abused patron parking”. Both are refuted. I pointed this out in a letter to PakingEye. These terms clearly lack detail. I did ask them to elucidate but they failed to do so in their reply. I therefore have no further information than that shown on the parking notice.

The signage does not refer to either of these reasons. In the absence of any detailed definition either from ParkingEye or from the signage I must rely on the everyday meaning of the words. I simply know that my car was not obstructing anything and I certainly did not abuse the parking. My car was parked in a bay away from the carriageway. When I parked there were other vehicles in the same bay. I specifically recall a van was parked there when I arrived. I was parked there for a short period while obtaining a prescription from Boots the retailer. At the time there were no road markings on the bay or signage to indicate that it was a restricted parking area, see below for more information.

Photographic Evidence

I have requested ParkingEye forward to me any photographic evidence upon which they intend to rely (as provided for in paragraph 22.3 of the B.P.A. Code of Practice). Again, they have failed to reply to this point.

As evidence I attach a number of photographs of the bay taken the day after the incident. As you can see there are no lines or markings on the road. There are no signs relevant to this specific area. The only sign is the generic one at the end of the bay. That sign is well above eye level and faces away from the bay. Had there have been any lines or signs indicating a parking restriction I would not have parked there. See photographs marked 1,2 and 3. The photograph marked 5 was taken on the 26th July 2013. As you can see there are now new markings on the area. Had these marking been present at the time I would not have left my car there. I would add that there are a number of bays around the perimeter of this site. All of the other bays at the time had some sort of markings on them, either with clearly stated restrictions or yellow lines. I think at the time in question this was the only bay with no restrictions, lines or specific signage.
Key to Photographs
1.Shows the bay I was parked in. You will note the lack of road markings. You will note cars freely parked in the bay. Photograph was taken on the 1st July.
2.Different view of bay. Shows the only sign near to the bay, unfortunately facing away from the bay. Also shows the lack of any road marking or yellow lines or signage, restricting parking. Photograph was taken on the 1st July.
3.Opposite view of bay from photograph 2. Photograph was taken on the 1st July.
4.Photograph of sign. You will note it restricts parking on double yellow lines and in loading bays. The bay I was parked in had no such markings at the time. Photograph was taken on the 1st July.
5.This photograph was taken on 26th July. You will note that road makings have been added and that the bay is now clearly marked as a 'Pick up Point' only. If ParkingEye consider that the restrictions and markings were adequate at the time why have the seen fit to change them?

ParkinEye took over management of this car park on the 6th June. Since that time they have been working their way around the car park, improving the road markings and more specifically updating the signage markings on the numerous bays. This is clearly an admission of lack of appropriate signage at the time of the incident. I contend that this is shown from the photographic evidence now provided.

UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms ParkingEye are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements . I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, and clarity) 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, 2011).
I also attach for your information a copy of my letter to ParkingEye, simply to show that they have failed to address this matter in any detail or reply to many of the points I raised. They simply sent me a generic letter indicating that the appeal was unsuccessful ”because you have not provided sufficient evidence”.This is rather frustrating.Had they have considered this matter in more detail I think they may well have dropped the case and avoided the need for this further inconvenience.

CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
ParkingEye do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier of Imperial Retail Park.

In their Notices and in the rejection letter, ParkingEye 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 (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whether ParkingEye have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Iwrote to ParkingEye on the 9th July indicating that I would be requesting site of such evidence. However none has been forthcoming to date.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - NO 'CREDITOR' IDENTIFIED
The Notice I have received make it clear that ParkingEye is relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged 'charge'. ParkingEye has failed to comply in the wording of their Notice to Keeper since they have failed to identify the “Creditor”. This may, in law, be ParkingEye or indeed some other party. The Act requires a Notice to Keeper to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”

The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Act does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has allegedly contracted and in failing to specifically identify the “Creditor”, ParkingEye has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.


BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - (part 21) ANPR
ParkingEye 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). I 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.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
ParkingEye 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', although any 'contravention' is of course denied.

Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then ParkingEye cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no Imperial Retail Park pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can ParkingEye lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).

This transparently punitive charge by Parking is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law. ParkingEye's own website is damning in this regard.

parkingeye website address

From ParkingEye website July 2013:
''ParkingEye Key benefits”
ParkingEye system supplied free of charge


So in conclusion, this is a revenue-raising scheme disguised as a 'parking ticket' - so in fact it is an unenforceable penalty.

I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.