Parking Eye Where next for me?

AllanI

Received two letters from Parking Eye yesterday.
One says that " The requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom's Act required for keeper liability have now been met etc" and goes on to say "If this letter is ignored , further action may be taken"
The other communication is them writing to say my appeal (which I sent see above posts) has been unsuccessful and giving me a POPLA reference number together with a POPLA appeal sheet.

So, what's the next step please?

tykesi

Appeal to POPLA.

Plenty of information on how to do that, you might want to read up on it rather than just asking for these helpful regulars to do it for you.

Coupon-mad

How to win at POPLA:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=62180281&posted=1

HTH and show us your draft if you want it 'checked' for winning words!

AllanI

Here's my copied draft altered to suit my circumstances.
With thanks to those with the knowledge.


POPLA Code: xxxx
Vehicle Reg: xxxx
PPC: Parking Eye Ltd
PCN Ref: xxxx
Alleged Contravention Date & Time: xxxxx
Date of PCN: xxxxx

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Parking Eye Ltd requiringpayment of a charge of £100 for “remaining at the car park for longer than thestay authorised” at xxxxxx This issue date on theinvoice is xxxxxxx

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the followinggrounds:

1 Charge not a genuinepre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3 Signage
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
5. ANPR Accuracy
6. Business Rates

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss The demand for a payment of£100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has norelationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. Thekeeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceablepenalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for abreach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuinepre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If the parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, thatcharge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require Parking Eye Ltd toprovide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated.I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost ofrunning the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of backoffice services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPALtd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.

2. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization tocontract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach ofcontract.
Parking Eye Ltd must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner,or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue chargenotices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles ParkingEye Ltd to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name ascreditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the Parking Eye Ltd to strict proof to POPLA that they have thenecessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the Parking EyeLtd produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between thelandowner and the Parking Eye Ltd. Even if a basic contract is produced andmentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in theland reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between ParkingEye Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Eye Ltd canlawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a thirdparty customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed.



3. Signage


The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole overlooking theentrance which is part of a junction to various parts of the car park. A driverentering the car park has other things to concentrate on rather than trying toread the sign without blocking the flow of traffic from the road behind. TheBPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrancesignage, including ''The sign should be placed so that it is readable bydrivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead'' and ''Theremust be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each ofwhich should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to haveblack text on a white background, or white text on a black background. At this car park thesigns are black text on yellow background in front of multi-colouredretailer signs. I parked in the spaces just off to the left of the entrance. Goingdirectly from there to the xxxxx store entrance there is no other signage. Itherefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the chargedismissed

.4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract hasbeen alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge'is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket.This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as ParkingEye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April2012).The operator could title the letter as an invoice or request for monies,but instead chooses to use the wording “PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt tobe deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and CouncilWardens issue. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld andthe charge dismissed.

5. ANPR Accuracy
Parking Eye Ltd are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in workingorder, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association'sApproved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I therefore requireParking Eye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when thecameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure theaccuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important becausethe entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show myvehicle entering and exiting at specific times and it is essential that ParkingEye Ltd produce evidence in response to these points.

6. Business Rates
Since this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by ParkingEye Ltd, which is entirely separate from any other business the car parkservices, and generates revenue and profit for Parking Eye Ltd, I do notbelieve that Parking Eye Ltd has declared the running of their business ventureat this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for thepurpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put Parking Eye Ltd to strict proof that they have so registered thebusiness they are operating at xxxxx carpark with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates arebeing paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of theirexemption from such Business Rates.
Thanks for reading.

Coupon-mad

That looks fine. Under the 'no authority to levy charges' I would be tempted to rub PE's noses in it every time now and cite Parking Eye v Sharma as a compelling recent case:

ParkingEye v Sharma.
Case No. 3QT62646 in the: Brentford County Court 23/10/2013
Before: District Judge Jenkins.
The judge said that contract was a commercial matter between PE and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park.

AllanI

I sent off my POPLA appeal by email last night. This morning I had the idea (a bit late maybe) to contact the retailer at the car park in question. After explaining the circumstances to the manager I was asked for the PCN number and was told they would get it cancelled. It seems they are in weekly contact with Parking Eye regarding charge notices and they want the parking period extended again after already getting another 30 minutes. I just hope the cancellation catches up with the other correspondence relating to the case.

Coupon-mad

That's good news, I will add your thread to the 'Successful complaints about PPCs' sticky thread then!

Also it's even better because PE might have to pay a POPLA fee then cancel it anyway!

AllanI

The saga rumbles on. I've had another communication from PE saying that they have been provided with evidence (by the retailer) that I was a genuine customer on the site in question. However because I should have provided this earlier in the process they have now incurred further costs. This is, as Coupon Mad said above, their cost of the POPLA appeal ie £27. They are making a "without prejudice offer" that if I pay the £27 before the appeal takes place they will take no further action whatever the result of the POPLA appeal. If I don't pay and then lose the appeal PE say they will take further action.
The POPLA appeal is due to take place on or soon after Dec 4th so not long to go. I know the decision is mine to make but asking again for advice on course of action.
1. Pay up ?
2. Don't pay and wait for appeal verdict ?
3. Contact POPLA about retailers evidence ?


Thanks in advance

nigelbb

If PE's original charge notice had mentioned the secret "I'm A Genuine Customer Get Me Out Of Here' clause then they would have incurred no expense at all as the OP could have confirmed that at the outset. Their 'without prejudice' offer is total !!!!!!!! for a start 'without prejudice' has no meaning in the context of POPLA. They know that they will lose at POPLA because the have been told to drop the charge by the retailer.

waamo

That is seriously out of order. You had no way of knowing that was a genuine appeal point and made a bona fide enquiry to the land owner who decided to cancel it.

The fact Parking Eye insisted on going to POPLA is their problem. I would complain to the DVLA and the BPA about their actions.