help with POPLA appeal

Stroma

Here is the email address, thanks
prankster@parking-prankster.com

If you don't know who he is try his blog
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

4consumerrights

markstokeshughes80 wrote: »

l

4consumerrights responses in bold



"It must therefore be noted this is a very difficult industry in which to determine a completely accurate pre-estimate loss. This will depend both on the losses to parking eye and on the potential losses to the landowner, which will vary depending on the time of day, the day of the week etc."

So can motorists challenge this amount legally if the shop isn't busy then?

"We have calculated the outstanding parking charge amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to):

Erection and maintenance of the site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate recognition systems. Employment of office-based administrative staff, membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the bpa,dvla and ico,general costs including stationery, postage, etc."

No these are not genuine pre-estimate of loss for any one alleged breach of contract. These are the normal day to day costs of running the business and many of these are tax deductible expenses anyway.

"This sum. And the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landholder." Let's see this in the actual contract then and not just a witness statement.

"This sum was also clearly laid out on the signage at the site and, by remaining on site, we contend that the motorist has accepted all of the prevailing terms and conditions of that contract, including the charge for breach of contract. Furthermore if the appellant believed terms to be unfair they should not of parked there in first place. "

Not if the charge is unenforceable and the motorist was able to park under pre-existing contract rights with the landowner

"Here parking eye has focused on its losses,although,As noted above there are also significant losses incurred by the landholder" - which are what exactly as the car park is free and doesn't the landowner receive a bonus rebate from the number of parking charges collected?

"The average payment by motorist who have issued with a parking charge is circa £63. Circa 84% of this payment (circa £53) covers parking eyes costs. This information has been taken from parking eyes company accounts and are publicly available. Parking eye is required to offer a 40% reduction to motorists for early repayment therefore this reduced amount needs to be greater than or equal to £53 in order for parking eye to operate as a business "

Shame no-one asked Parking Eye to operate as a business anyway - and you are not liable for ensuring that parking eye is profitable!
But the £53 is Parking Eye's general operating costs (as they pointed out above) - Also what would happen if no motorists visited or breached terms - no parking charges could be issued which undermines this point and their explanation for the charge being a commercial justification.


"In all the information sent there is things missing that I made points on

1)they have sent a witness statement signed on behalf of aldi saying they have authority to issue parking charges. I didn’t ask for this I asked for copy of a contract but this was not provided." So where is the actual contract then - a signed witness statement does not prove that there is a full contract in force and that parking eye have the legal right to pursue claims.

"2)there was no evidence giving that the anpr image was accurate and
no proof of contemporaneous checks and maintenance of these cameras was given" - Probably due to the fact none were done!

"3)there was no defence that they have breached UK maternity protection law as covered in the Equality Act 2010 and why that has not been taking into account "-Because a) they do not believe complying witht he Equality Act applies to them (unlawfully) and b) their ANPR systems do not recognise any disability.

"4)they also sent a plan were all signs were but on plan there is meant to be double sided sign in middle of car park and it is only one sided.(should I send picture of this to popla)

5)there is also no defence were signs does not tell drivers what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for -" Lack of signage when using ANPR breaches both the BPA codes and lCO Codes of conduct.

"Was just wondering what to do now should I email popla again asking why information has not been given or leave it to them."

This is the information that Parking Eye have given POPLA and if you read the sticky thread re POPLA decisions -you will note that POPLA do not consider operational costs to be GPEOL either!
"Any help be great as little worried now.

　

"

Responded in bold to some of the text given by Parking Eye -this is a general response also from them and has been seen in another thread recently. (Jeanraffios - I think - but can't find link at moment)

You could also contact ADLI directly to get the parking charge cancelled - using the Equality Act and the fact you are a genuine customer as well.
(Has your wife had her baby yet - hope all went well):):)

markstokeshughes80

Thanks yes my wife has had baby and all wet ok we had a little girl she is now nearly 3 months old.I drafted up a email i was going send to POPLA which is below.any help on if its looks ok or does it need things added or taking out be great.

POPLA refernce:

I have just recived all information of parking eye that they have sent you about there defence for my appeal.I would like to highlight some points they made.

1)They have stated "We have calculated the outstanding parking charge amount as a genuine pre-estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. These costs include (but are not restricted to):

Erection and maintenance of the site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate recognition systems. Employment of office-based administrative staff, membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the bpa,dvla and ico,general costs including stationery, postage, etc."

they also go on to say "This sum. And the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landholder."

I would like to state that none of the above are genuine pre-estimate of loss for any one alleged breach of contract. These are the normal day to day costs of running the business and they would occured these wether i parked there or not also many of these are tax deductible expenses anyway.

2)They state "The average payment by motorist who have issued with a parking charge is circa £63. Circa 84% of this payment (circa £53) covers parking eyes costs. This information has been taken from parking eyes company accounts and are publicly available. Parking eye is required to offer a 40% reduction to motorists for early repayment therefore this reduced amount needs to be greater than or equal to £53 in order for parking eye to operate as a business "

I would like to state no-one asked Parking Eye to operate as a business anyway - and you are not liable for ensuring that parking eye is profitable!
But the £53 is Parking Eye's general operating costs (as they pointed out above) - Also what would happen if no motorists visited or breached terms - no parking charges could be issued which undermines this point and their explanation for the charge being a commercial justification.

3)They state "This sum. And the calculations which have been made in setting it, has been approved and agreed by the landholder." and they have sent a witness statement signed on behalf of aldi saying they have authority to issue parking charges.

I did not ask for this in my appeal I asked for copy of a contract but this was not provide. i would like to know where is the actual contract - a signed witness statement does not prove that there is a full contract in force and that parking eye have the legal right to pursue claims.

4)There was no evidence giving that the anpr image was accurate and no proof of contemporaneous checks and maintenance of these cameras was given

5)there was no defence given that they have breached UK maternity protection law as covered in the Equality Act 2010 and why that has not been taking into account

6)There is also no defence that there signs does not tell drivers what they will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for. i have attached one of there photos as you can see there is no mention of this also there terms and conditions are so smaal they are unreadable and you could not even read with a manigfied glass

I would like to state Lack of signage when using ANPR and have unreadable terms and conditions breaches both the BPA codes and lCO Codes of conduct.

7)They also sent a plan were all signs were but on plan there is meant to be double sided sign in middle of car park and it is only one sided.

I have attached a photo of the one sided sign to prove this point.

All these points above should surely mean they charged is unenforceable

Guys_Dad

You have missed your ace in the hole PE have submitted in their papers that their own calculations show that the pre estimate of loss including the operating costs is£53. The amount claimed is almost twice that and therefore contains their profit element and can not therefore be a Genuine pre estimate of loss. QED. You need to spell that out.

Coupon-mad

And you should cast some aspersions on the witness statement, bearing in mind the recent court cases where the dates and signatures were 'irregular':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4812058

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4807738

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/i-am-collecting-parkingeye-witness.html

Check the date of the witness statement, does it look as if the date was added in a different (female?) hand and was it dated before the parking incident?

Guys_Dad

You write a supplementary based on your request for a copy of the contract not being provided.

I extract this fro my recent popla template that you can adapt

"It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company"

You may also be interested in the second part of my first appeal point. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

markstokeshughes80

Thanks everyone just to let you know I won my popla appeal will attached email they sent later when on computer and not tablet but basically said was because didnt prove was geniue pre estimate loss.