Parking Eye PCN

PeterPoorParker

So, I received the rejection letter today and have drafted a POPLA appeal, please could you check this over and let me know if it makes sense and is sufficient?

Dear Sir or Madam:

On XXth XX 2013, I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXXX. As the registered keeper of this vehicle, I dispute and deny the charge received under PCN XXXXXX/XXXXXX with POPLA Ref XXXXXXXXXX for the following reasons:

• I do not believe that Parking Eye Ltd have a sufficient proprietary interest or sufficient agency terms in their contract with the landholder to offer parking or pursue charges on behalf of the landowner. I would like to request a copy of their contract with the landholder as evidence that they have sufficient rights to issue parking charges for this property.

• I believe that this charge is punitive and would request that Parking Eye Ltd provide a breakdown of their costs as per the BPA Ltd Code of Practice, as I do not believe there has been any loss suffered by the landowner. Furthermore, I do not believe that the charge is a contractual performance as no VAT is due in respect of this charge (ref VCS vs HMRC), and consequently it can only be a charge in respect of damages. Unless Parking Eye Ltd is able to demonstrate that this charge is not in excess of the loss suffered, then the charge represents a legally unenforceable contractual penalty.

I respectfully ask POPLA to direct Parking Eye Ltd to cancel the ticket.

Kind Regards,

Coupon-mad

I would suggest just a few wording tweaks:

• I do not believe that Parking Eye Ltd have a sufficient proprietary interest or sufficient agency terms in their contract with the landholder to offer parking or pursue charges on behalf of the landowner. [STRIKE]I would like to request[/STRIKE] I require Parking Eye to produce a copy of their contract with the [STRIKE]landholder[/STRIKE] landowner as evidence that they have sufficient rights to issue parking charges for this property and to pursue these charge in the courts, in their own name as creditor. This is specifically a requirement of the BPA Code of Practice as regards landowner contracts, full compliance with which is, in turn, a prerequisite of the POFA 2012.

• I believe that this charge is punitive and would request that Parking Eye Ltd provide a breakdown of their [STRIKE]costs[/STRIKE] pre-estimate of loss as per the BPA Ltd Code of Practice, as I do not believe there has been any loss suffered by the landowner. Furthermore, I do not believe that the charge is a contractual performance as no VAT is due in respect of this charge (ref VCS vs HMRC), and consequently it can only be a charge in respect of damages. Unless Parking Eye Ltd is able to demonstrate that this charge is not in excess of the loss suffered, then the charge represents a legally unenforceable contractual penalty. POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

You could also put PE to proof that they have fully complied with the requirements of the BPA CoP re ANPR, like in this example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4798336

and you could put them to proof regarding the signage in this car park as the entrance doesn't have a prominent low sign which a driver could read when driving in (as per Appendix B of the BPA CoP about entrance signs). And to show that the whole car park signage complies with the BPA CoP as regards signage in the car park.

Now the reason for adding these in is simply to cost PE money in man hours, photocopying, maps, photos of signs and postage to you and to POPLA with all their 'evidence' - and to give people a safety net if, one day, PE actually come up with a reply to GPEOL and Contract!

Guys_Dad

Also have a look at this recent appeal and see if anything here youn want to use too, https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4800038

hoohoo

+1 to coupon mads advice to add the signage to the complaint.

ParkingEye beleive the BPA rules do not apply to them, and always try and push the boundary for signs. They don't 'do' proper entrance signs because if they did too many people would notice them and thus cut into their revenue stream.

Here is a youtube video of McDonalds Bridgend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkWk18j-PY

At 4 seconds in you can see the entrance sign (on right of picture) placed right down the bottom of the pole so it is hidden by the bush. As all the other signs are high up on the pole, if I was uncharitable I would say the only reason that sign is there is so as to hide it behind a bush.

You may be able to take similar pictures/videos for your appeal.

PeterPoorParker

Updated, what do you guys think? Thanks for the advice BTW...

Dear Sir or Madam:

On XXth XXXXXXXX 2013, I was the registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXXX. As the registered keeper of this vehicle, I dispute and deny the charge received under PCN XXXXXX/XXXXXX with POPLA Ref XXXXXXXXXX for the following reasons:

• I do not believe that Parking Eye Ltd have a sufficient proprietary interest or sufficient agency terms in their contract with the landholder to offer parking or pursue charges on behalf of the landowner. I require Parking Eye to produce a copy of their contract with the landholder as evidence that they have sufficient rights to issue parking charges for this property and to pursue these charges in the courts, in their own name as creditor. This is specifically a requirement of the BPA code of Practice as regards landowners contracts, full compliance with which is, in turn, a prerequisite of the POFA 2012.

• I believe that this charge is punitive and would request that Parking Eye Ltd provide a breakdown of their pre-estimate of loss as per the BPA Ltd Code of Practice, as I do not believe there has been any loss suffered by the landowner. Furthermore, I do not believe that the charge is a contractual performance as no VAT is due in respect of this charge (ref VCS vs HMRC), and consequently it can only be a charge in respect of damages. Unless Parking Eye Ltd is able to demonstrate that this charge is not in excess of the loss suffered, then the charge represents a legally unenforceable contractual penalty. POPLA assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of the parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss.

• Parking Eye Ltd has provided no evidence that the BPA code of practice has been correctly adhered to. Specifically, I require Parking Eye Ltd to provide documented evidence that the following stipulations from PART 21 of the BPA Code of Practice have been following:

o 21 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 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.

o 21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge
notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the
ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is
appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you
should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.

o 21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your
car parks in good working order. You need to make sure
the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and
cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use
to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our
compliance team or our agents.

o 21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and
process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information
Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and
ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.

o 21.5 If you want to make use of the Keeper Liability
provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and you have
not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the
driver in the car park where the parking event took
place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict
requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule
(in particular paragraph 9).

I have had no evidence that Parking Eye Ltd have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

• As highlighted in the initial appeal to Parking Eye, the signage at the entrance to the site is not sufficiently prominent and cannot be read from a right-hand drive vehicle while driving. This contravenes the guidance outlined in Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice regarding entrance signs. Indeed, I require Parking Eye to provide sufficient evidence to POPLA that the signage for the whole car park complies with the BPA Code of Practice. If this cannot be provided then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the signage does not correctly comply with the BPA Code of Practice and thus any charge is unenforceable.


I respectfully ask POPLA to direct Parking Eye Ltd to cancel the ticket.

Kind Regards,

Coupon-mad

Very nice POPLA appeal!

Umkomaas

Might just benefit from a numbered heading for each appeal point, especially the GPEOL one. It will draw the Assessor's attention quickly to the one issue that makes their job so much easier!

PeterPoorParker

OK will adjust headings now.

Thanks for all the help guys, will keep you appraised of how it goes!

PeterPoorParker

So I've just received a small rain forest from ParkingEye, which is all their evidence sent to POPLA.

Included in it are photos and locations of the signs, photos of the vehicle and a list of cases where the appeal points have been upturned.

One thing I've noticed though on the photos section, they provide an image of the sign and it states the penalty is £90, then subsequent photos they provide say the fine is £100??

Redx

find any discrepancies like this and send an email to popla mentioning you are adding further points to your own appeal raised due to receiving this avalanche from the PPC