Parking Eye - Aldi

Umkomaas

Stonker wrote: »

OK, maybe I'll try some of that too.

I will send post #89 to Aldi in reply, we are also keen to push them on the equality issues as I really don't believe they should be putting my partner through this. I therefore think my partner should write to both Aldi and PE requesting that they stop this harrassment bearing in mind that the is suffering with depression and anxiety

Unless you are seeking but a Pyrrhic, yet somewhat less certain, victory, then POPLA is the best way for you to go. Seems to me far less work to do in putting together a POPLA appeal - plenty of templates available on the forum.

Stonker

Yes, I fully appreciate all that, The fresh PCN was only received this week though so we have plenty of time.

Umkomaas

Stonker wrote: »

Yes, I fully appreciate all that, The fresh PCN was only received this week though so we have plenty of time.

As many before you have thought, until they return here with 'Help'!

No time like the present, although you are excused tomorrow! Merry Christmas

Stonker

OK, how does this look for a soft appeal?



With reference to the invoice XXXXX dated XXXXXX, I was the driver of the vehicle and I deny all liability for this charge on the following grounds:

1. Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
2. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Unclear/non-compliant signage
4. No legal authority/contract

1. Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010

Having been diagnosed with anxiety and depression and receiving medication and counselling in respect of the same, I am entitled to an extended period of time to make my purchasing decisions and complete my shopping. The issuing of your PCN is seen as discrimination, is unwelcome and to be considered as harassment

2. This is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss:

The amount of the charge (£XX) is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Parking Eye Ltd and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Terms Act 1997. The Appellant also considers the charge to be a penalty because Parking Eye have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss which cannot include business running costs (as found in Vehicle Control Services vs Mr R Ibbotson 16th of May 2012) only the costs resulting in overstaying in a free car park. The £XX charge is an unfair term and therefore not binding under the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Schedule 2 gives and indicative but not exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair.

Schedule 2 (1) (e):

'Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation'

Regulation 5 (1) says:

'A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer'

Regulation 5 (2) says:

'A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term'

Private parking tickets unrelated to any genuine pre-estimate of loss are unenforceable penalties. The amount claimed by Parking Eye is liquidated damages and, as such, the Operator may only charge a genuine pre-estimate of loss that arises from the alleged contravention.
The Operator charges include a basket of costs, including the cost of erecting site signage and the cost of membership of the BPA, DVLA charges, wages and uniforms which are Operational costs of running the business.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. However, some of the costs referred to do not represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same.

3. The signage is unclear and not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice:

The Appellant believes the signs and parking terms were unclear and requests Parking Eye Ltd disclose their evidence and signage map/photos specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. The Appellant believes the signage onsite is too high, too small and not affixed within a close enough radius of the entrance and therefore easy to miss. It does not state any terms and conditions nor the amount of free parking. The signs in the car park are also too high and too small and it’s not reasonable that any driver of any age or height can read and understand them. The Appellant believes the signs are unclear and non-compliant.

4. You do not have authority or contract to issue these invoices:

Parking Eye Ltd do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier. Parking Eye Ltd have not provided the Appellant with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of the title of the land in question. The Appellant does not believe Parking Eye Ltd has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS vs HMRC 2012). The Appellant puts Parking Eye Ltd to strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location. This would be in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner/occupier specifically evidencing the ability of Parking Eye Ltd to pursue parking charges to the courts.

I require that you immediately cancel this invoice. If you reject this appeal, please forward a POPLA verification code to appeal to them independently. As you are aware POPLA always uphold appeals on the above.

My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld. If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Finally, please be advised that refusal to cancel the Parking Charge Notice and insistence in pursuing this ridiculous matter further will constitute harassment now that I have informed you that your advances are discriminatory and unwelcome

Stroma

That's more of a popla appeal IMO , you don't need to go into such detail

Stonker

TBH, from what I've read, I might as well say 'I was abducted by aliens, give me a POPLA code'

Redx

agreed , keep that long one as the basis for a popla appeal, just use one of the simpler templates like stroma posts to hook a popla code

Stonker

OK how about something along the lines of 'I am quite prepared to present my defence based on GPEOL to POPLA but please be advised that as I have been diagnosed with anxiety and depression, your invoice is discriminatory under the equality Act 2010 and any further pursuance of this matter will be considered as harrassment'

Stroma

Something like this, slightly altered with parking pranksters recommendation

Dear UKPC,

As the registered keeper of (reg) I'm in receipt of your parking invoice xxxxxx dated xxxxxx. I wish to invoke your appeals process as all liability to you company is denied on the following

1) this charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) you do not have the authority or permission to issue invoices at this location

If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter

Faithfully

Stonker

OK, should I keep in the equality act bit though as I do see this as unwelcome harrassment