parking Eye fine

sunnysouthport

Thank you for your help. there is so much info about appeals to popla that is difficult to know where to look and what will be helpful, but the link was extremely useful - I now know exactly where to look and can get on with my appeal. Will post an update when there is more news.
Thanks again to all who have offered advise and help. it is much appreciated.

Guys_Dad

I have lifted this from post #14 here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4762012

'The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.


The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have charged me £3.80 for the time my car was parked there. The £97.20 difference between the parking charge and the parking charge notice cannot be construed as anything but a punitive penalty. In the appeal Parking Eye did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.



Proprietary Interest

The appellant does not believe that the operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Premier Park any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Premier Park lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge

The appellant believes 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 Premier Park. The appellant expects Premier Park to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

Now add to that a section on poor signs and any other relevant points, and post up your appeal before sending it off

sunnysouthport

I have drafted my POPLA appeal. Any comments favourable or otherwise would be greatfully appreciated.

[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Adjudicator

RE: POPLA code: XXXXXX

Vehicle Registration:XXXXXXX
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: XXXXXX 2013
Date of notice: XXXXXXX 2013

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The following are the relevant documents in this appeal:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Notice to Keeper served by Parking Eye Ltd on the registered keeper (attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]My appeal letter to Parking Eye Ltd against the parking charge (attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter from Parking Eye Ltd(attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]My reply letter to Parking Eye Ltd (attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Copy of receipt as proof of shopping on site (attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Letter from Parking Eye Ltd (attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]My reply to Parking Eye Ltd (attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Photographic evidence of signage (attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]BPA Ltd Code of Practice (not attached)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Before explaining the grounds on which I am appealing I would like to point out that the Notice to Keeper is incorrect in that it only uses my Christian names and not my surname, which seems very strange. The Parking Charge Notice shows a photo of my car entering the car park and one of it supposedly leaving. However the photo of the car supposedly leaving has the number plate superimposed over the top of the image. The rest of the image is very dark and I can only assume the number plate could not be read clearly as it was too dark, and Parking Eye Ltd therefore felt the need to superimpose the image over the top. If this is so then how I can be sure that this is even my car leaving as the original image has been tampered with. This does not seem right to me.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The grounds on which I am appealing are as follows:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Entering, Parking and Exiting[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The Respondent uses camera’s at the entrance/exit of the retail park. The cameras only record the time that a vehicle enters the car park and when it leaves, they do not record the actual parking event nor the point at which the contract to park is entered into. There are five separate actions involved here that relate to the parking event.
1.Driving into the car park. (Entry time recorded on camera).
2.Parking the car in an empty parking space.
3.Reading the terms and conditions of parking offered at the retail park. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.Acceptance of those terms and conditions by remaining at the car park. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.Driving out of the parking space.
6.Driving out of the retail park. (Exit time recorded on camera).
The times of the actual ‘parking under contract’ event therefore differ significantly from the entry and exit times recorded by the cameras. Furthermore, the system takes no account of the regular problems in effecting a speedy departure due to the road layout and exit onto the highway. The alleged parking offence took place on a busy summer Sunday afternoon. There are frequent tail backs and it is not uncommon for a motorist to wait some time to leave, during which time, when not parked but waiting to get out time soon ticks away until one is at the front of the queue and the camera captures the exit image.
The BPA Ltd Code of Practice requires that parking operators can only rely on camera evidence if it does so in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Thus the Respondent has failed to recognise that it takes time to get in, find a space, consider the terms and conditions and then eventually to leave.
The Respondent’s claim for a parking charge for an alleged overstay based solely on the entry and exit times recorded by cameras is therefore fatally flawed and cannot be relied upon, on a balance of probabilities, to prove its case. This is particularly relevant in my case as the overstay in the car park has been recorded as only 11 minutes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Parking Eye Ltd’s legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Firstly I would like to point out that, in their correspondence with me, Parking Eye have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle using the car park. Nor that they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land in XXXXXXX town centre.
Accordingly, I kindly ask you to check whether or not Parking Eye have provided an up-to date, signed copy of the contract or agreement with the landowner – one which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts. I would require that this is an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred [/FONT][FONT=&quot](off which there is none as this is a free car park) by Parking Eye Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay – even 11 minutes! There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Parking Eye Ltd lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £45 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Inadequate Signage.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The sign which I was parked near is at an unreasonable height and therefore very difficult to read (in fact the small print cannot be read at all.) (See attached photographic evidence showing an adult underneath the sign.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The parking charge is punitive. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of liquidated damages and is therefore an unlawful penalty charge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you once more for everyone who has offered help and advise so far.
[/FONT]

Guys_Dad

Not enough.

1. You have missed Grace period - see BPA CoP. 11 minutes not enough time.

2. The pre-estimate of loss point should state that they are not allowed to include operational costs such as wages, signs,office costs etc.

3. Parking charge punitive sentence at end seems out of place.

4. You don't "kindly ask". You put the PPC to "strict proof. Mention Somerfield -v- Parking Eye where PE did not have right to pursue motorists to court, only ticket them and send letters.

Umkomaas

I agree with Guy's Dad, you really have to ask (assertively) that POPLA require PE to provide proof to defend their own position in regard to your various individual challenges; if they can't do that on any point - you win.

Beef things up a bit.

sunnysouthport

Thank you for that. I will do as you suggest before sending my appeal and will let you know the outcome.

sunnysouthport

:jOn Friday I received all the evidence which Parking Eye had submitted and I must say I was rather down hearted as there was just so much of it. However on saturday I received my letter from POPLA. They addressed the issue of whether the charge was a genuine pre-estimate of loss or not.
POPLA stated:
"The Operator has produced a statement which it submits justifies the charge as a pre-estimate of loss, however, i am not minded to accept this justification. The Operator must show that the charge sought is a genuine estimate of the potential loss caused by the parking breach. The Operator has produced a list of costs; Hoever, a substantail proportion of these appear to be general operational costs, and not losses consequential to the Appellent's breach....Consequently I must find that the Operator has failed to produce sifficient evidence to demonstrate that the parking charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I need not decide any other issues."
This is fantastic news, especially just before Christmas, and I would like to sincerely thank all those who have offered help and advise to me, wothout whom I would simply have paid the initial penalty charge.

prosnap

Well done.

Yet another POPLA judgement to keep the forums 100% win record in place.