Parking Eye PCN Notice, Tower Road Newquay

simon196

Just sent my appeal to Parking Eye....Fingers crossed.

Guess I will receive a rejection letter in the next 10 days !

simon196

Got a reply back from PE. Unfortunately they have rejected my claim.
Rejected due to "insufficient evidence provided to show that terms and conditions on their signage were not broken. They state that they are fully compliant with BPA regulations and also confirm that adequate signage is present at this site which is clear and legible."
They go on to mention "as a gesture of goodwill they will extend the discounted £60 payment for a further 14 days"

They have also provided a POPLA code so that I can appeal to POPLA.

OMG what should I do ??? I have to say I'm a little concerned about the POPLA appeal. Is it likely that I will win if I appeal on the grounds of;
1) Signage - apparently according to PE they are fully compliant ? I have no idea whether they are or aren't ?
2) Lack of contract - Unsure whether a contract is in place between PE and the landowner ??
3) Charge not a genuine pre estimate of losses incurred....this is very true....I can't see how they could have sustained any losses due to our overstay.

zzzLazyDaisy

Yes those are all winning points. Have a look at the POPLA decisions thread, you'll soon see how to word your appeal. Prepare a first draft and post it here for the regulars to check over before you send it (please do not go it alone!).

Daisy

Edit - did you ever contact the golf club?

simon196

Hi Daisy,
Yes contacted the Golf Club but only to confirm that they were indeed the landowner.

zzzLazyDaisy

Then have a look at this thread and get complaining about how their parking agent is treating you, as a genuine customer (if you have any receipts/credit card statement of spends on the day, enclose them, but otherwise explain what happened, that you are a regular customer (if that is true) and so on (read some of the threads from posters who have successfully has their charge cancelled by the landowner/retailer

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4766249

But don't take your eye off the POPLA deadline

Coupon-mad

simon196 wrote: »

Hi Daisy,
Yes contacted the Golf Club but only to confirm that they were indeed the landowner.

COMPLAIN to them about this harassment, ask to speak to the person in charge and even if he/she disagrees with what you are saying, STILL make it clear how irate you are about Parking Eye harassing people like this and ask if they realise what a notorious and litigious bunch they have got into bed with here. Be really annoyed but reasoned, calm but icily assertive. If they get enough complaints in their direction they may decide PE are too much of a bad thing to have on site, when it comes to contract renewal.

And here's a POPLA appeal I helped someone write as SchoolRunMum on pepipoo yesterday over a fake PCN in Tower Road car park:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83841

...don't copy it exactly but learn from it and make sure you include the important stuff ('no genuine pre-estimate of loss', and also 'PE don't own the site and so you require them to show they have a contract with the landholder which complies with the BPA CoP and enables them to pursue tickets to the courts if necessary in their own right').

simon196

POPLA Appeal first draft.
Thanks 'coupon-mad' for the link to a previous template. I have followed this template and added some extra stuff. Please let me know your thoughts and suggestions (feel a little out of my depth here !!)

I have also written to the Secretary of the golf club to point out my dissatisfactions relating to their chosen subcontractor, Parking Eye.
Will let you know if I have any response.

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

Vehicle registration number: xxxxxxxxxx
PCN number: xxxxxx/xxxxxx
Operator Name: PARKINGEYE
Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxx

This is my appeal to POPLA as the registered keeper of the vehicle above. Myhusband and I I have already appealed to Parking Eye, the parking operator ofthe Tower Road car park, who rejected our appeal due to insufficient evidencebeing provided. I have attached my appeal letter to them as summary and supportinginformation in this POPLA appeal.

I am appealing on the following grounds:

1) POOR, UNCLEAR SIGNAGE. SIGNAGE NOT ADEQUATELY DISPLAYED AT THE SITE.

As described in my letter to Parking Eye(xx/09/2013), the signage on this car park is unclear in its intention.

Firstly no signage whatsoever is displayedat the entrance to this car park as required by BPA regulations.

The only signage that was evident waslocated in the main area of the car park and facing in the opposite directionof travel. This being the case the driver would have no opportunity to read thedetailed information contained in the, quite literally, ‘small print’ of thissign. (I have attached a photograph of sign displayed in the main area of thecar park). As you can see there is a huge amount of information for the driverto read and digest as they are ‘ushered past’ the sign by the parkingattendant. I suggest that it is impossible for anyone to be able to read,understand and comply with this signage. I would also suggest that the signageis unfit for purpose in this respect and as a result no contract had beenknowingly entered into.

Furthermore, as mentioned in my letter toParking Eye, my 11 year old son purchased an ‘ALL DAY’ ticket on our behalf. Weassumed this to be quite literally ‘ALL DAY’ as indicated by the signage. Itwasn’t until we returned to our car that we noticed an expiry time of 22.00 onthe printed ticket which had been displayed in the window of our vehicle. Theproposed ‘ALL DAY’ times are actually mentioned on the signage but in muchsmaller font, which we had not seen as we were ‘ushered quickly ’ past the sign….I would question why the applicable times are printed in a smaller less visiblefont than the words ‘ALL DAY’. Again I believe that this is counterproductive tothe purpose of the sign and believe it to less obvious to the reader. In myunderstanding ‘ALL DAY’ means ‘all day’ i.e. 24Hrs and not only 8am – 10pm ? I suggest that it should be modified to ensurethat it can be easily read and understood by all users.

I would also like to point out that thesign also states ‘Parking Tariffs Apply 8am – 10pm’. We thus understood fromthis statement that from 10pm onwards parking charges do not apply. The signfurther mentions ‘No Parking Outside these Times’ which in our understanding ofthe wording is that there was no parking after 10.00 i.e.”no entry topark", particularly as the sign says "ALL DAY" in larger letterswith 8.00 a.m. - 10.00 p.m. in much smaller letters which as I pointed out areeasily missed by the reader.



2) NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

Parking Eye is clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5of the BPA Code of Practice as they suggest our mistake constituted a breach ofcontract. As such, they must be required to validate this argument by providingPOPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which clearly evidences the genuinepre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for thisparticular 'contravention'. I am unable to see how our actions would result inand ‘extra’ costs whatsoever to Parking Eye or indeed the landowner in thisrespect.

Since the car park was actually ‘closed and no damage was caused, there canhave been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Parking Eye lawfullyinclude their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I didrequest Parking Eye to provide this information in my recent letter to them,however I received no information in this regard included within their reply. Itherefore contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (priorto starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared orconsidered in advance.




3) UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE

Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage in this case, and yet a breach ofcontract has been alleged, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is anattempt at dressing up an unlawful penalty to impersonate a parking ticket.This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as ExcelParking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow(review, February 2011) and in the case of Parking Eye v Smith (ManchesterCounty Court December 2011).



4) CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICEAND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS

Parking Eye do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for theowner/occupier. In their Notice and in their rejection letter, Parking Eye havenot provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to issue aparking charge against a driver on this site, since they do not own nor haveany interest or assignment of title of the land in question.

I do not believe that Parking Eye, acting as the car park operator has thenecessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicleparking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach ofcontract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012).

I respectfully request that POPLA confirm whether Parking Eye have provided afull copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract in place withthe landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and ensurethat it specifically entitles Parking Eye as an operator to pursue parkingcharges in their own name in the court system.




5) ANPR SECTION OF THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE

Parking Eye uses ANPR camera’s at the entrance/exit of the car park. Thecameras only
record the time that a vehicle enters the car park and when it leaves, they donot record the actual parking event nor the point at which the contract to parkis entered into.

The times of the actual ‘parking under contract’event in this case therefore differ significantly from the entry and exit timesrecorded by the ANPR cameras. Furthermore, the ANPR system takes no account ofthe regular problems in effecting a speedy departure.

In this particular case, upon returning toour vehicle and realising the expiry time printed on the pay-and-display ticket,we spent some considerable time attempting to try to understand what we shoulddo. We attempted to try to read the signage which was not illuminated, thereforemaking it even more difficult to read given that it was already quite dark. Iwould estimate that we spent in excess of 20 minutes reading and decipheringthe signage and debating what we needed to do. As previously described weconcluded that we did not need to do anything further as we understood that the ‘Parking Tariff’no longer applied as it was outside of the charging times.

The BPA Ltd Code of Practice requires that parking operators can only rely onANPR evidence if it does so in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.Thus the Parking Eye has failed to do this in this instance.


Parking Eye’s claim for a parking charge for an alleged overstay based solelyof the entry and
exit times recorded by ANPR cameras is therefore fatally flawed and cannot berelied upon, on a balance of probabilities, to prove its case.

I further contend that Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence that thecameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code ofPractice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particularsection of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shownproof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 ofthe Code, in its evidence.



Furthermore I would also point out that ParkingEye have since written to my husband falsely accusing him of being the driverof the vehicle on the particular day in question. Their letter dated xx/09/2013and addressed to him, incorrectly states; “Your details have been provided bythe registered keeper, naming you as the driver of the above vehicle at thetime of the parking event.” I as the registered keeper of the vehicle above Iwould like to point out have I have not provided any information to Parking Eyenaming my husband as the driver at this time. Again I have included this letteras evidence in this appeal. I would suggest that this false accusation furtherdemonstrates the unrealistic assumptions and poor customer relations relatingto Parking Eye Ltd

On the basis of all the points raised, this'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP andalso fails to comply with the CPUTR 2008 and basic contract law. It is unfairand punitive and, as such, I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.


Yours sincerely

Guys_Dad

Please allow me to suggest the following words should be incorporated in your pre-estimate of loss appeal point. I have actually used an adjudicator's words from a successful appeal

The charge represents liquidated damages, which is compensation, agreed in advance; this means that the breach should represent the actual loss caused. The operator has made a reference to the loss incurred and justifies the charge in relation to the erection and maintenance of site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the ANPR systems, employment of office based administrative staff, membership fees and general costs.

In this case, the justification appears to be on the basis of general operating costs rather than addressing the loss actually caused as a result of overstaying the maximum permitted time and not consequential to the appellant's alleged breach.

nigelbb

The information that the Office of Fair Trading gave to the BPA Ltd on parking charges (which they choose to ignore) contains this cracking paragraph at the bottom of page 2 which sums up the whole PPC business very succinctly (I have highlighted crucial points). Indeed it sums up the holes in the whole PPC business too.

Further the OFT expressed the view that a parking charge will not automatically be recoverable, simply because it is stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where none exists. It will not be recoverable if the court finds that it is being imposed as a penalty. If a parking charge is imposed for parking beyond hours permitted under a contract, in order for it to be recoverable as liquidated damages, the court will need to be satisfied of a number of matters, including that it represents a genuine pre-estimate of the loss incurred and that it meets the requirements of applicable consumer protection legislation, for example the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The OFT also expressed the view that the court will also need to be satisfied about who the consumer was contracting with and that this is the party bringing proceedings.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/freedom_of_information/FoIA-responses/IAT-FOIA-135010.pdf

Coupon-mad

Nigelbb I have just added your post to my links that I give to people who are working on a defence of a small claim from any PPC. That quote could very nicely serve to focus a judge's mind on a person's defence point about breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008.