Received letter before action from parking eye Recorded Delivery

Umkomaas

Willyoulearn wrote: »

Please see previous two posts.

I've just read them, that's why I'm asking my question!

Willyoulearn

Sorry, my last post crossed with yours.

Yes, I included the receipts and the reference to The Range Head Office in my letter to PE requesting POPLA code. My name and address, as named Driver, at top of letter.

Reply was sent to RK, who no longer lives at this address. Lucky (or not) I noticed word POPLA just showing at bottom of address window and opened the letter, otherwise I may have run out of time to do POPLA.

zzzLazyDaisy

The letter should have been sent to you, as the named driver, and not the RK.

However, the important thing is that you do have the POPLA code which is time limited, so you need to focus on preparing your appeal to POPLA. If you prepare your first draft and post it here, someone will check it over for you.

In my view you are in danger of going off on a wild goose chase if you waste your energy following up the issue of the code being sent to the RK - you can include it as a point in your POPLA appeal if you wish, but it isn't a magic bullet, and I'll put money on them ignoring it.

But you WILL win at POPLA on the tried and trusted points.

I don't know if there is any merit in complaining to BPA about them sending the POPLA code to the RK (who is officially out of the picture now) but I am sure one of the regulars will be able to comment on that. Whatever, that will wait until you have got the POPLA appeal sorted and sent.

D

Guest101

Willyoulearn wrote: »

Received parking charge from Parkingeye, googled it and decided to ignore. My daughter is the RK. Is there anything I can do at this stage, do I stick it out. Do not want my daughter to get CCJ as she is looking to buy her first house with mortgage. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Just so you are aware, you dont get a CCJ simply for going to sourt. if you fail to pay along the ruling of the court, is when u get a CCJ.

So dont panic too much about actual court

Umkomaas

Sorry OP, my iPad ran out of juice after you replied to my last post! So now re-charged.

It seems (from other posts elsewhere) that PE are in a bit of administrative turmoil with wrong papers being sent to wrong individuals from time to time, so your situation seems to further confirm this.

You (or more specifically your daughter) have a POPLA code, so you mustn't waste it chasing up PE's administrative c*ck up.

You can draft a POPLA appeal on behalf of your daughter - no one has to appear before POPLA, it's all paper-based. Do plenty of reading on here about how to construct a successful POPLA appeal (the forum sticky POPLA Decisions is a good place to start, especially the most recent - say - six pages). Put your draft together and let us have the chance to look it over and help with anything missing or not relevant and that should give you the strongest possibility of success.

The main thing is to get this killed off - in whoever's name - I presume the PCN reference number is the same between yours and your daughter's paperwork from PE?

Coupon-mad

Willyoulearn wrote: »

Sorry, my last post crossed with yours.

Yes, I included the receipts and the reference to The Range Head Office in my letter to PE requesting POPLA code. My name and address, as named Driver, at top of letter.

Reply was sent to RK, who no longer lives at this address. Lucky (or not) I noticed word POPLA just showing at bottom of address window and opened the letter, otherwise I may have run out of time to do POPLA.

OK so you have a 10 digit POPLA code to use, yes?

Then use that POPLA code and put both names at the bottom of the POPLA appeal (yours as driver and the rk's since the POPLA code was sent to them) then POPLA can't kick it out as 'not being from the person who was sent the POPLA code' or some such rubbish!

How to word a winning POPLA appeal:

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

HTH

Willyoulearn

Hello again, it has been some time but here is my draft POPLA appeal.


The driver appeals the parking charge notice issued by ParkingEye Limited ('PE'). The driver disputes the £100 charge and would ask that the charge be cancelled on the following grounds:-


1. Genuine pre-estimate of losses
PE's charge is disproportionately high and doesn't reflect an accurate depiction of loss. The driver would like to highlight that their charge is not proportionate to the loss which they claim has occurred. PE have failed to produce any evidence specifically demonstrating how the figure of £100 (£60) directly relates to said vehicle's alleged overstay in this free car park. The driver declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
PE have presented no evidence with regard to the costs they claim they have incurred or how they relate to the event in question, the list is no more than a list of business operating costs and would be exactly the same whether The driver had parked there or not, and cannot be deemed to be losses. The driver asks PE to confirm.
The driver suggests that the charge is disproportionate and accordingly not in line with Schedule 2(1)(e) of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, nor as described in paragraph 19 of the BPA's Code of Practice, version 3.0 of June 2013.
The driver puts it to PE to demonstrate how the charge was arrived at and to break down how exactly it can be applied to the specific event in question.
The driver requires PE to confirm whether or not they receive any payment from the landowner for the provision of signs.

2. PE's legal capacity to enforce/issue the Parking Charge Notice.
PE have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of the vehicle using the car park. Nor do they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land in Xxxxx town centre. The driver demands that the PE produce the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and themselves. Accordingly, The driver asks that PE provide an up-to date, signed copy of the contract or agreement with the landowner which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts.
The driver puts the Operator to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location. The Appellant asks that the actual contract be shown in full as they do not believe it to be compliant with the BPA code of practice.

3. ANPR cameras
The signs in the car park does not comply with the regulations set out in the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. PE claim in their letter to The driver that they subscribe to these regulations. According to paragraph 21.1, signage needs to inform drivers what their camera technology can be legitimately used for:

"You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for".

However, as can be seen from the photographs The driver has included, the signage does not tell drivers what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. There can be seen a small image of a camera but no evidence of anything which tells a driver what they will do with the data captured. The driver puts it to PE to demonstrate how their signage meets the BPA's regulations. It is also The driver's case that the small print at the bottom of the sign is unreadable from ground level.

Further to this, as described in paragraph 21.3, PE are obliged to make sure this equipment is in working order. The driver also requires them to present evidence on whether the cameras were checked and maintained recently in relation to the date of the alleged incident, to ensure the accuracy of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show The driver's vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

All comments gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

Yep, almost there.

'Unclear, far too high, signage which is not compliant with the BPC CoP' should always be a point IMHO even if you've never been there yourself and can't go and look! Point being that anything you say shifts the burden to THEM to prove!

Willyoulearn

Thanks coupon-mad, I have a photo of the signage, impossible to read small print at bottom of sign and I'm 6ft tall!

Any other points I need to raise?

Willyoulearn

Here is my final draft, sending it recorded today as I don't want to run out of time. Having researched POPLA appeals in this forum, I think I have included all necessary points.

Thanks everybody for all your help.

I have still not been shopping to the nearby town where I was issued with the ticket, and will not be going back anytime soon. I am managing ok just shopping in my small home town, and on line, actually feeling quite liberated.

I made enquiries at the large local Tesco store and they reluctantly confirmed that a PPC operates on their car park. I noticed there were cameras at the entrance and exit, but no signage, apart from one small sign on far side of the very large car park. Don't think they can get away with that!

Once again thanks everyone, will await results of my appeal.


Dear POPLA adjudicator,

RE: PARKING Eye fake PCN number xxxxxx POPLA code xxxx

On the Parking Eye issued a parking charge notice of £100 because the above vehicle was allegedly recorded on the automatic number plate recognition system as having stayed at the Range, Xxxxxxxxfor xx hours xxminutes. I appeal on the grounds that I am not liable for the parking charge, the vehicle was not improperly parked and the 'parking charge' exceeds the appropriate amount.

GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSSES

The Operator has not produced any evidence to show that at this site and on this occasion, the parking charge was proportionate to the loss caused. PE's charge is disproportionately high and doesn't reflect an accurate depiction of loss. PE have failed to produce any evidence specifically demonstrating how the figure of £100 directly relates to said vehicle's alleged overstay in this free car park. The driver declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.

The driver suggests that the charge is disproportionate and accordingly not in line with Schedule 2(1)(e) of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, nor as described in paragraph 19 of the BPA's Code of Practice, version 3.0 of June 2013.

The signage states that a PCN would be issued for “failure to comply” with the parking conditions. This wording indicates that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Parking Eye have failed to show how this charge was arrived at and to break down exactly how it can be applied and show a 'loss' flowing from the specific event in question.

The driver requires PE to confirm whether or not they receive any payment from the landowner for the provision of signs.

It was found in the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd vs Mr R Ibbotson (16th May 2012) that general business costs cannot constitute a loss and also has been held to be the case in a number of very recent compelling and comparable decisions against Parking Eye, when similar cases have been considered by POPLA.

PE's LEGAL CAPACITY TO ENFORCE/ISSUE THE PARKING CHARGE NOTICE

PE have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of the vehicle using the car park. Nor do they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land in Barrow-in-Furness town centre.

The driver demands that PE produce the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and themselves and for the actual contract to be shown in full to POPLA, as The driver believes it is not compliant with the BPA code of practice. Accordingly, The driver asks that PE provide an up-to date, signed copy of the contract or agreement with the landowner which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts.

The driver puts the Operator to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at the location.

SIGNAGE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NOT FORMING A CONTRACT WITH A DRIVER

I believe the signs and any core parking terms Parking Eye are relying upon were unclear in all respects. This Operator needs to show POPLA their evidence and signage map/photos which they might contend meet all the requirements I have listed below.

It is also The driver's case that the small print at the bottom of the sign is unreadable from ground level.

All other signs on site are very high, with small font and colour blocks/graphics and these are completely unreadable from a car - and even when standing up after parking, the signs are still several feet above head-height.

Parking Eye have a duty to make the terms so clear that they cannot be missed. To fail in this respect means that the elements of a contract have not been met. To suggest a breach of contract, Parking Eye also needs to show that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which they cannot do as it is clearly untrue. The idea that any driver would accept these terms to pay this charge knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. The truth is that the driver did not see, understand nor accept the alleged terms. Parking Eye may claim that generic signage is displayed around the car park but this does not meet the BPA Code of Practice rules nor the requirements for consideration when forming an alleged contract.

The BPA Operational Requirements Section 18.1 and 18.2 states:
''In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.
Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in 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.'' I do not expect PE to be able to produce any evidence that these signs comply with these Operational Requirements, nor with the specifics in Appendix B of the Code of Practice on Entrance Signage.

ANPR cameras

The signs in the car park do not comply with the regulations set out in the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. PE claim in their letter to The driver that they subscribe to these regulations. According to paragraph 21.1, signage needs to inform drivers what their camera technology can be legitimately used for:

"You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for".

However, as can be seen from the photographs The driver has included, the signage does not tell drivers what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. There can be seen a small image of a camera but no evidence of anything which tells a driver what they will do with the data captured. The driver puts it to PE to demonstrate how their signage meets the BPA's regulations.

Further to this, as described in paragraph 21.3, PE are obliged to make sure this equipment is in working order. The driver also requires PE to produce records of camera maintenance, proof that they are calibrated correctly in terms of both date and precise time, whether the cameras were checked and maintained recently in relation to the date of the alleged incident, to ensure the accuracy of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show The driver's vehicle entering and exiting at specific times.

UNFAIR TERMS AND AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY

I feel this charge is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. Furthermore under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 a list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes Schedule 2(1)(e) ‘Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’.
Also, Regulation 5(1) states:
‘A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.’

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an 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).

I therefore submit this charge should be dismissed.

---