PE, POPLA Appeal Advice please

Magicaldebs

Hi Folks
This is my POPLA appeal regarding a PCN from Parking Eye. I would really grateful if someone would look over it for me. I have taken advice from other threads on here and pepipoo.

These are the details of my appeal to POPLA.

POPLA Ref: XXXXXXXXX
PCN: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Parking Eye Ltd
Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Location XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: XXXXXXXXXX

On XXXXXXXXXXXXX 2013. I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) through the post from Parking Eye Ltd. Parking Eye Ltd had used automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and alleged that either ‘the appropriate parking time had not been permitted of the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than permitted’, they have not made clear their specific complaint, however, parking charges were paid in full on the day.

My appeal
1. The amount charged is disproportionate to the loss occurred by Parking Eye Ltd, it is punitive and contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. Parking Eye have cited general running costs as their alleged loss, however I dispute this, Parking Eye would incur the same running costs whether the vehicle had paid for a ticket or not, therefore running costs cannot constitute loss in this particular case, therefore the charge of £100 can only be punitive.

2. Parking Eye Ltd have intimated in a reply to me that they are not the owners of the land in which XXXXXXXXXXX Car Park stands, therefore Parking Eye Ltd has no legal standing to offer parking spaces or to enter into a contract with a third party. Also Parking Eye’s lack of propriety interest in the land means that they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss.

3. I believe that there is no contract that entitles Parking Eye Ltd to issue parking charge notices. I requested that Parking Eye Ltd produce evidence that they have authority to levy charges against vehicles owners in this way, they have not provided any.

4. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice, June 2013 states, in relation to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR):

21.1. 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 in the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by APNR cameras to do.

I can produce photographic evidence that demonstrates that signs at the car park do not mention the use of ANPR in any form or manner. Therefore I believe that Parking Eye Ltd have contravened the BPA code of practice in this instance.

5. A valid Blue Disabled Driver badge was clearly displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice, June 2013 states:

16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid blue badge you must not issue it with a parking charge notice.

I believe that Parking Eye Ltd has once again contravened the BPA Code of Practice.

6. The vehicle was not parked in a Disabled Bay as there were none available at the time of parking. Parking Eye Ltd.’s insistence that Blue Badge holders should ‘only park in marked bays’ contravenes the Disability Act 2010. This is a instance of ‘Direct discrimination’ which the Disability Equality Act 2010 defines as a situation where ‘as a result of their disability a disabled person receives worse treatment than someone who does not have a disability’ .

It is my belief that on a number of points Parking Eye Ltd has contravened the BPA Code of Practice for approved operator of parking on private land. I believe they have acted in punitive and discriminatory manner. I would therefore request that this parking charge be declared invalid.

Thank you for your help and advice
Debs

Guys_Dad

Magicaldebs wrote: »

Hi Folks
This is my POPLA appeal regarding a PCN from Parking Eye. I would really grateful if someone would look over it for me. I have taken advice from other threads on here and pepipoo.

These are the details of my appeal to POPLA.

POPLA Ref: XXXXXXXXX
PCN: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Parking Eye Ltd
Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Location XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: XXXXXXXXXX

On XXXXXXXXXXXXX 2013. I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) through the post from Parking Eye Ltd. Parking Eye Ltd had used automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and alleged that either ‘the appropriate parking time had not been permitted of the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than permitted’, they have not made clear their specific complaint, however, parking charges were paid in full on the day.

My appeal
1. The amount charged is disproportionate to the loss occurred by Parking Eye Ltd, it is punitive and contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. Parking Eye have cited general running costs as their alleged loss, however I dispute this, Parking Eye would incur the same running costs whether the vehicle had paid for a ticket or not, therefore running costs cannot constitute loss in this particular case, therefore the charge of £100 can only be punitive. 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 failed to address the issue and POPLA has no evidence to dispute my claim that the amount sought exceeds the cost to the landowner.

2. Parking Eye Ltd have intimated in a reply to me that they are not the owners of the land in which XXXXXXXXXXX Car Park stands, therefore Parking Eye Ltd has no legal standing to offer parking spaces or to enter into a contract with a third party. Also Parking Eye’s lack of propriety interest in the land means that they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss. Don't think this is right

3. I believe that there is no contract that entitles Parking Eye Ltd to issue parking charge notices. I requested that Parking Eye Ltd produce evidence that they have authority to levy charges against vehicles owners in this way, they have not provided any. I therefore put Parking Eye to strict proof by means of providing a copy of the relevant sections of that contract. Note that a short witness statement claiming to be signed by an agent of the landowner is NOT sufficient as it could have been signed by anyone.

4. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice, June 2013 states, in relation to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR):

21.1. 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 in the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by APNR cameras to do.

I can produce photographic evidence that demonstrates that signs at the car park do not mention the use of ANPR in any form or manner. Therefore I believe that Parking Eye Ltd have contravened the BPA code of practice in this instance. There is no 2-step process to POPLA. If you have the evidence - provide it. "I can provide" is worthless.

5. A valid Blue Disabled Driver badge was clearly displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice, June 2013 states:

16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid blue badge you must not issue it with a parking charge notice.

I believe that Parking Eye Ltd has once again contravened the BPA Code of Practice.

6. The vehicle was not parked in a Disabled Bay as there were none available at the time of parking. Parking Eye Ltd.’s insistence that Blue Badge holders should ‘only park in marked bays’ contravenes the Disability Act 2010. This is a instance of ‘Direct discrimination’ which the Disability Equality Act 2010 defines as a situation where ‘as a result of their disability a disabled person receives worse treatment than someone who does not have a disability’ .

It is my belief that on a number of points Parking Eye Ltd has contravened the BPA Code of Practice for approved operator of parking on private land. I believe they have acted in punitive and discriminatory manner. I would therefore request that this parking charge be declared invalid.

Thank you for your help and advice
Debs

Nice appeal, Debs.

Take a look at my points in red and see if you agree.

Magicaldebs

Thank you so much for your help Guys Dad.
I found point 2 in a successful appeal on peepipoo, but I'm happy to take it out as i think other points are stronger anyway. I'll print a photo off and include it with the appeal.
That's great
Debs

Umkomaas

6. The vehicle was not parked in a Disabled Bay as there were none available at the time of parking. Parking Eye Ltd.’s insistence that Blue Badge holders should ‘only park in marked bays’ contravenes the [STRIKE]Disability[/STRIKE] Equality Act 2010. This is a instance of ‘Direct discrimination’ which the [STRIKE]Disability[/STRIKE] Equality Act 2010 defines as a situation where ‘as a result of their disability a disabled person receives worse treatment than someone who does not have a disability’ .

This paragraph needs a minor tidying up as per my strike-outs and the blue addition. Not meaning to be pedantic, but you never know how POPLA might view inaccuracies, no matter how small.

Otherwise, very good appeal - especially as you seem to have done this via research and self-drafting without an initial help from the forum. Well done :T

Let us know how the appeal progresses.

Magicaldebs

Thank you very much for your corrections. I don't mind this at all, that's what I've asked for.
I'm sending this off tomorrow, I'll let you know how I get on.
Debs

Coupon-mad

Magicaldebs wrote: »

Hi Folks
This is my POPLA appeal regarding a PCN from Parking Eye. I would really grateful if someone would look over it for me. I have taken advice from other threads on here and pepipoo.

These are the details of my appeal to POPLA.

POPLA Ref: XXXXXXXXX
PCN: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Parking Eye Ltd
Reg: XXXXXXXXX
Location XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: XXXXXXXXXX

On XXXXXXXXXXXXX 2013. I received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) through the post from Parking Eye Ltd who [STRIKE]Parking Eye Ltd[/STRIKE] had used automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) and alleged that either ‘the appropriate parking time had not been [STRIKE]permitted[/STRIKE]paid or [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] the vehicle remained in the car park for longer than permitted’.

They have not made clear their specific complaint, however, parking charges were paid in full on the day and the driver displayed a Blue Badge and so (under current disability law) was legally allowed a 'reasonable adjustment' of paid-for time.

My appeal
1. The amount charged is disproportionate to [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] any possible loss [STRIKE]occurred[/STRIKE] incurred by Parking Eye Ltd or the landowner/occupier, since parking was paid for and the driver was entitled to a 'reasonable adjustment' of time. It is punitive and contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms Act [STRIKE]1997[/STRIKE] 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking Eye have cited general running costs as their alleged loss, however I dispute this, Parking Eye would incur the same running costs whether the vehicle had paid for a ticket or not. Therefore running costs cannot constitute a genuine pre-estimate of loss in this particular case, therefore the charge of £100 can only be punitive and, as such, unenforceable.

2. [STRIKE]Parking Eye Ltd have intimated in a reply to me that they are not the owners of the land in which XXXXXXXXXXX Car Park stands, therefore Parking Eye Ltd has no legal standing to offer parking spaces or to enter into a contract with a third party driver. Also Parking Eye’s lack of propriety interest in the land means that they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss.[/STRIKE] I think I would delete this as it adds nothing and is a little confusing.

2. I believe that there is no contract that entitles Parking Eye Ltd to issue parking charge notices including enforcing these as sole creditor in the courts, as specifically required in the BPA Code of practice. I requested that Parking Eye Ltd produce evidence that they have authority from the landowner to levy charges against vehicles owners in this way, they have not provided any.

3. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice, June 2013 states, in relation to automatic number plate recognition (ANPR):

21.1. 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 in the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by APNR cameras to do.

I [STRIKE]can produce [/STRIKE] attach photographic evidence that demonstrates that signs at the car park do not mention the use of ANPR in any form or manner. Therefore I believe that Parking Eye Ltd have contravened the BPA code of practice in this instance.

4. A valid Blue [STRIKE]Disabled Driver[/STRIKE] Badge was clearly displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice, June 2013 states:

16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid blue badge you must not issue it with a parking charge notice.

I believe that Parking Eye Ltd has once again contravened the BPA Code of Practice. That section of the BPA code is unequivocal and does not limit the effect of that clause only to cars parked in disabled bays. Quite simply, an AOS member cannot issue a PCN to a car displaying a Blue Badge in a car park such as this, where parking for disabled people is specifically facilitated.

5. The vehicle was not parked in a Disabled Bay as there were none available at the time of parking. Parking Eye Ltd.’s insistence that Blue Badge holders should ‘only park in marked bays’ contravenes the [STRIKE]Disability[/STRIKE] Equality Act 2010 since this is not possible when the concessionary bays are full and places an onerous parking restriction on disabled drivers which is not applied to able-bodied visitors.

If Parking Eye are alleging that the driver 'overstayed' paid for time (which is denied and is unclear from the PCN) it shows that the Operator has made no 'reasonable adjustments' of time for disabled visitors. This is an unfair fixed criterion which puts disabled visitors with protected characteristics at a disadvantage if their condition causes them to be slower to get about (as with this driver). To avoid a service provider breaching the Act, protected disabled visitors must be allowed a reasonable extension of time in a car park before parking charges or time limits apply to them, as they would have applied to able-bodied visitors.

This ostensibly 'equal' charging policy is indirect disability discrimination as defined in the Equality Act 2010 and a breach of the EHRC Statutory 'Equality Act Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' which became law on 6 April 2011:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/equality-act/equality-act-codes-of-practice-and-technical-guidance/

''5.4 What does the Act say?
Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.''

Charging disabled and non-disabled people the same, and applying the same fixed time limit for parking is not 'equal treatment' at all and is, under current disability law, discriminatory. Parking Eye cannot circumvent the Equality Act 2010 nor can they ignore their legal duties within the EHRC statutory code of practice for service providers such as car park operators and landowners. And Parking Eye are aware of this fact because in some car parks they allow double time for customers who register at the store customer service desk. This leaflet from Parking Eye at Leyland Aldi proves that Parking Eye do sometimes consider disability law but only at some car park sites:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77891

It is illegal for an Operator to pick and choose where they apply disability law, and where in comparable car parks such as this one, they don't bother.


[STRIKE]This is a instance of ‘Direct discrimination’ which the DisabilityEquality Act
2010 defines as a situation where ‘as a result of their disability a disabled
person receives worse treatment than someone who does not have a disability’. [/STRIKE]



It is my belief that on a number of points Parking Eye Ltd has contravened the BPA Code of Practice for approved operator of parking on private land. I believe they have acted in punitive and discriminatory manner and have no BPA code-compliant contract nor have they/the landowner shown any genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from this incident.

I would therefore request that this parking charge be declared invalid.''

Try the above suggestions?

Have you also complained to the CEO of the place where the driver was a customer? This is illegal and is their liability too. A service provider must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. It may seem 'fair' for a disabled person to pay the same amount as the next person, per hour, but that's actually discriminatory as some Councils have discovered to their cost. Charging disabled and non-disabled people the same is not 'equal treatment':

http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/article/norwich-blue-badge-victory

And because the EHRC Code of Practice about the Equality Act is statutory, and imposes legal duties upon private 'service providers' as well as local authorities, the effect if the law is the same whether Council or private. The only difference on private land is that there's even more protection because a disabled person is protected without any 'Blue Badge' (since it doesn't actually apply on private land, the PPCs just use and abuse the scheme).

HTH

Magicaldebs

That's really interesting, I hadn't considered that is takes so much longer for my husband to get about therefore he is paying more for parking, but it's true, he does need longer.
I shall certainly add this to the appeal.
Thank you very much for support and advice with this appeal.
Debs