parking eye charge notice

glassy2010

glassy2010 wrote: »

Stroma wrote: »

I would put a complaint into the dvla and bpa on this, they are deliberately being obstructive, they have rejected your appeal they must supply a popla code.

how do i go about a dvla and bpa complaint?

i have read through your sticky notes and am going to write my complaint tomorrow should i

1. tell them the ticket reference number who the ticket is from and the date and time i received it

1. tell them i have asked to look for any unmatched registrations from that time

1. tell them they are being obtrusive and not either upholding my appeal or supplying me with a popla code so i can take this further

1. tell them i have sent 3 e-mails to no avail

and anything else i may need to add

thanx in advance

Coupon-mad

Yep that would do and remind Steve Clark at the BPA that he emailed all AOS members only a couple of months ago to remind them that in section 22 of the BPA code of Practice it states that 'drivers and keepers' can appeal to POPLA. Why are ParkingEye thinking that part of the BPA CoP doesn't apply to them?

glassy2010

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep that would do and remind Steve Clark at the BPA that he emailed all AOS members only a couple of months ago to remind them that in section 22 of the BPA code of Practice it states that 'drivers and keepers' can appeal to POPLA. Why are ParkingEye thinking that part of the BPA CoP doesn't apply to them?

i have writen my e-mail to dvla bpa and the nhs patient services is there any way i could get some1 to cast a glance over it without posting the whole thing on here for every1 to see it??

glassy2010

i have e-mailed the dvla, the british parking association and the hospital patient services department today

had a reply from british parking association

Thanks for your e-mail, the contents of which are noted.



By copy I am asking my Operations Manager to look into this matter for you – he will be in touch shortly.



Kind regards


Steve Clark

Head of Operational Services

recived a reply from patient services

Thank you for your email which I have passed to the Operational Services Manager responsible for the management of the car parks. I have asked him to look into the issues you have raised and contact your directly with the outcome within the next 24 hours.

glassy2010

hi again guys received my popla code today i was given it by david metcalf operational manager of the bpa after a referral from steve clark recommended on your forum so thanx guys

i know i now have to trawl through all popla appeal wins what are the main things im looking for? thanx in advance

Coupon-mad

Well add this bit:

''The driver did pay £2.40 and display, but the P&D ticket was obviously discarded at the time since the driver had no idea you were going to send this letter. I require you to check your records for payments made around xpm that day as I am sure there must be a non-matched car registration very similar to mine. This will be the payment made by the driver.''


suitably reworded (to change the 'you/your' to 'ParkingEye') to the usual paragraph about 'no genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

You will see that paragraph and all the other usual winners (several paragraphs needed), here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

HTH and there are so many examples you should find a relevant PE one to adapt. Show us what you cobble together as we want to help you to win.

glassy2010

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Show us what you cobble together as we want to help you to win.

a first draft hope this is somewere near ive now got square eyes lol

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxx
PPC: ParkingEye
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: xxxxxx
Date of notice: xxxxxxxx
Alleged Contravention: either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permited
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge onthe following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
1. Entering, Parking and Exiting
2. Parking Eye Ltd’s legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notice
3. ANPR accuracy
4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
5. Business rates
6. FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE


1. Entering, Parking and Exiting
The Respondent uses camera’s at the entrance/exit of the retail park. The cameras only record the time that a vehicle enters the car park and when it leaves, they do not record the actual parking event nor the point at which the contract to park is entered into. There are five separate actions involved here that relate to the parking event.
1.Driving into the car park. (Entry time recorded on camera).
2.Parking the car in an empty parking space.
3.Reading the terms and conditions of parking offered at the retail park.
4.Acceptance of those terms and conditions by remaining at the car park.
5.Driving out of the parking space.
6.Driving out of the hospital car park. (Exit time recorded on camera).
The times of the actual ‘parking under contract’ event therefore differ significantly from the entry and exit times recorded by the cameras. Furthermore, the system takes no account of the regular problems in effecting a speedy departure due to the road layout and exit onto the highway. The alleged parking offence took place on a Thursday afternoon at 18:15. There are frequent tail backs and it is not uncommon for a motorist to wait some time to leave, during which time, when not parked but waiting to get out time soon ticks away until one is at the front of the queue and the camera captures the exit image.

The BPA Ltd Code of Practice requires that parking operators can only rely on camera evidence if it does so in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Thus the Respondent has failed to recognize that it takes time to get in, find a space, consider the terms and conditions and then eventually to leave.
The Respondent’s claim for a parking charge for an alleged overstay based solely on the entry and exit times recorded by cameras is therefore fatally flawed and cannot be relied upon, on a balance of probabilities, to prove its case. This is particularly relevant in my case as the overstay in the car park has been recorded as only 19 minutes.


2. Parking Eye Ltd’s legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices
Firstly I would like to point out that, in their correspondence with me, Parking Eye have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle using the car park. Nor that they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land in wansbeck ashington.
Accordingly, I kindly ask you to check whether or not Parking Eye have provided an up-to date, signed copy of the contract or agreement with the landowner – one which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts. I would require that this is an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists.
it was stated that a third party agent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found in ParkingEye v Sharma:Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between Parking Eye and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park. I submit that this applies in this case as well.
3. ANPR Accuracy
ParkingEye are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require ParkingEye to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times
I would like to challenge Parking eye to strict proof of compliance with the BPA CoP re: maintenance of ANPR equipment and ask for documentary evidence of maintenance and calibration, also I challenge challenge parkingeye for proof of compliancein DPA registration (data collecting CCTV)
it is vital that ParkingEye produce strict proof in response to these points. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times
4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue.
The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.
Furthermore, I attach a letter from Parking Eye in correspondence with another case, that admits that their estimate of cost in each case is actually £53, including operating costs, and this that the charge they are seeking to impose in my case (£70) has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. By their own admission, therefore, It can not, be a true pre-estimate of loss
The driver did pay £2.40 and display, but the P&D ticket was obviously discarded at the time since the driver had no idea parkingeye were going to send this letter. I require parkingeye to check your records for payments made around 16:55pm that day as I am sure there must be a non-matched car registration very similar to mine. This will be the payment made by the driver.
I quote


"The Operator submitted that the charge is based upon the cost of enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administrative staff) and the charge was agreed by the land owner and specified on site signage.


However, this does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the parking contract. The loss specified by the Operator is the cost of providing parking enforcement at the site. In other words, were no breach to have occurred the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same.



Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.


I must allow the appeal on this ground.

Matthew Shaw

Assessor

5. Business rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by ParkingEye, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for ParkingEye, I do not believe that ParkingEye has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put ParkingEye to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at wansbeck general hospital car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.
6. FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE

I contacted ParkingEye on 12th October 2013 and clearly stated that I (as registered keeper) denied all liability to their company and asked them to uphold my appeal or supply me with a POPLA verification code for me to appeal independently as per the BPA Code of Practice.
I would assume the appeal will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply.
They went on to further attempt to bully me “If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.”
I have sent 3 appeals via the parking Eye website, i have asked them to recheck there records and also to check for any mismatched registration and parking Eye are taking no notice they are being obtrusive and not either upholding my appeal or supplying me with a popla code so i can take this further.

it was only after e-mailing steve.c@britishparking.co.uk, patient.services@nhct.nhs.uk and elizabeth.symons@dvla.gsi.gov.uk that steve clark refered me to david Metcalf the bpa operations manager her contacted parking eye and was told my popla code was send by post on the 15th of November
on the 20th of November I received a letter from parkingeye with my popla code dated the 18th of November which is odd seeing as how they informed david Metcalf of the bpa that it had been sent on novermber15th.
ParkingEye ignored this requirement. They therefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. They went on to further attempt to bully


SUMMARY

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.
I put ParkingEye to strict proof of the above points and would like to mention Mention Somerfield -v- Parking Eye where PE did not have right to pursue motorists to court, only ticket them and send letters.
I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.
Yours faithfully
(registered keeper)

4consumerrights

glassy2010 wrote: »

a first draft hope this is somewere near ive now got square eyes lol

RE: POPLA code XXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: xxxxxx
PPC: ParkingEye
PCN ref: XXXXXXX
Alleged Contravention Date: xxxxxx
Date of notice: xxxxxxxx
Alleged Contravention: either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permited
I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge onthe following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.
1. Entering, Parking and Exiting
2. Parking Eye Ltd’s legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notice
3. ANPR accuracy
4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss
5. Business rates
6. FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE


1. Entering, Parking and Exiting
The Respondent uses camera’s at the entrance/exit of the retail park. The cameras only record the time that a vehicle enters the car park and when it leaves, they do not record the actual parking event nor the point at which the contract to park is entered into. There are five separate actions involved here that relate to the parking event.
1.Driving into the car park. (Entry time recorded on camera).
2.Parking the car in an empty parking space.
3.Reading the terms and conditions of parking offered at the retail park.
4.Acceptance of those terms and conditions by remaining at the car park.
5.Driving out of the parking space.
6.Driving out of the hospital car park. (Exit time recorded on camera).
The times of the actual ‘parking under contract’ event therefore differ significantly from the entry and exit times recorded by the cameras. Furthermore, the system takes no account of the regular problems in effecting a speedy departure due to the road layout and exit onto the highway. The alleged parking offence took place on a Thursday afternoon at 18:15. There are frequent tail backs and it is not uncommon for a motorist to wait some time to leave, during which time, when not parked but waiting to get out time soon ticks away until one is at the front of the queue and the camera captures the exit image.

The BPA Ltd Code of Practice requires that parking operators can only rely on camera evidence if it does so in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Thus the Respondent has failed to recognize that it takes time to get in, find a space, consider the terms and conditions and then eventually to leave.
The Respondent’s claim for a parking charge for an alleged overstay based solely on the entry and exit times recorded by cameras is therefore fatally flawed and cannot be relied upon, on a balance of probabilities, to prove its case. This is particularly relevant in my case as the overstay in the car park has been recorded as only 19 minutes.


2. Parking Eye Ltd’s legal capacity to enforce/issue Parking Charge Notices
Firstly I would like to point out that, in their correspondence with me, Parking Eye have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal capacity to charge the driver of a vehicle using the car park. Nor that they have any proprietary interest in this particular piece of land in wansbeck ashington.
Accordingly, I kindly ask you to check whether or not Parking Eye have provided an up-to date, signed copy of the contract or agreement with the landowner – one which states that they are entitled to pursue these matters through issuing PCNs and through the courts. I would require that this is an actual copy and not simply a document which claims that such a contract or agreement exists.
it was stated that a third party agent cannot pursue such a charge anyway, as was found in ParkingEye v Sharma:Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court23/10/2013. District Judge Jenkins dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between Parking Eye and the landowner, and didn’t create any contractual relationship with motorists who used the car park. I submit that this applies in this case as well.
3. ANPR Accuracy
ParkingEye are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require ParkingEye to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times
I would like to challenge Parking eye to strict proof of compliance with the BPA CoP re: maintenance of ANPR equipment and ask for documentary evidence of maintenance and calibration, also I challenge challenge parkingeye for proof of compliancein DPA registration (data collecting CCTV)
it is vital that ParkingEye produce strict proof in response to these points. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times
4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue.
The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.
Furthermore, I attach a letter from Parking Eye in correspondence with another case, that admits that their estimate of cost in each case is actually £53, including operating costs, and this that the charge they are seeking to impose in my case (£70) has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. By their own admission, therefore, It can not, be a true pre-estimate of loss
The driver did pay £2.40 and display, but the P&D ticket was obviously discarded at the time since the driver had no idea parkingeye were going to send this letter. I require parkingeye to check your records for payments made around 16:55pm that day as I am sure there must be a non-matched car registration very similar to mine. This will be the payment made by the driver.
I quote


"The Operator submitted that the charge is based upon the cost of enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administrative staff) and the charge was agreed by the land owner and specified on site signage.


However, this does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the parking contract. The loss specified by the Operator is the cost of providing parking enforcement at the site. In other words, were no breach to have occurred the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same.



Consequently, I have no evidence before me to refute the Appellant’s submission that the parking charge is unenforceable.


I must allow the appeal on this ground.

Matthew Shaw

Assessor

5. Business rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by ParkingEye, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for ParkingEye, I do not believe that ParkingEye has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put ParkingEye to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at wansbeck general hospital car park with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.
6. FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE

I contacted ParkingEye on 12th October 2013 and clearly stated that I (as registered keeper) denied all liability to their company and asked them to uphold my appeal or supply me with a POPLA verification code for me to appeal independently as per the BPA Code of Practice.
I would assume the appeal will be deemed accepted if there is no POPLA code on any rejection that you supply.
They went on to further attempt to bully me “If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action against you.”
I have sent 3 appeals via the parking Eye website, i have asked them to recheck there records and also to check for any mismatched registration and parking Eye are taking no notice they are being obtrusive and not either upholding my appeal or supplying me with a popla code so i can take this further.

it was only after e-mailing [EMAIL="steve.c@britishparking.co.uk"]steve.c@britishparking.co.uk[/EMAIL], [EMAIL="patient.services@nhct.nhs.uk"]patient.services@nhct.nhs.uk[/EMAIL] and [EMAIL="elizabeth.symons@dvla.gsi.gov.uk"]elizabeth.symons@dvla.gsi.gov.uk[/EMAIL] that steve clark refered me to david Metcalf the bpa operations manager her contacted parking eye and was told my popla code was send by post on the 15th of November
on the 20th of November I received a letter from parkingeye with my popla code dated the 18th of November which is odd seeing as how they informed david Metcalf of the bpa that it had been sent on novermber15th.
ParkingEye ignored this requirement. They therefore failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice. They went on to further attempt to bully


SUMMARY

On the basis of all the points I have raised, this 'charge' fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.
I put ParkingEye to strict proof of the above points and would like to mention Mention Somerfield -v- Parking Eye where PE did not have right to pursue motorists to court, only ticket them and send letters.
I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.
Yours faithfully
(registered keeper)

***********************

Glassy2010 - you have got the winning points included for a successful POPLA appeal

However it is quite clearly evident you have just copy and pasted sections of text from various threads(mainly guy's dads core popla thread and winning POPLA's appeals and just added your own sentence here and there. It is better to read and understand fully each point and then try and write it in your own words where possible

The section regarding genuine pre-estimate of loss needs to be completely reworded as you have copied chunks from POPLA decisions, Guy's dads template and how the Assessor responds to the PPC's submissions - which has not even occurred yet and even included his name!

By all means submit a copy of the letter that PE have produced which states the operating costs - this can be done as additional evidence with a reference in your own words contained in the body of the appeal.

You also need to add that PE have breached other codes of practice. (as well as the POPLA one)
eg misleading information regarding driver/keeper and rights to appeal
not being specific what the alleged breach is - WHAT IS IT ANYWAY?
the ticket machine non-compliant and/or unclear instructions to operation.

how long did you pay for? -reasonable grace periods are required for entering and deciding to stay AND for leaving at the end of the paid parking time before charges are made.
e

glassy2010

hi guys recived this today while i was at work

Tracey.Davidson@northumbria-healthcare.nhs.uk

I have received notification from Veronica Gingell, Operational Services Manager that the parking charge notice has been cancelled. She has however asked for an explanation from Parking Eye and once I am in receipt of this I will contact you further.



I hope this is acceptable.



Kind Regard

Tracey Davidson

im going to sound daft here but is that all i need
do i need them to send me proof its been cancelled
do i still write a popla appeal??

thanx again

Stroma

Yes write the popla appeal and submit it, this will cost them £27 keep an eye out for the letter though, there is no need to contact parking eye over it. Let them do the leg work on this