ParkingEye Ticket - help would be much appreciated!

ezerscrooge

Just an observation. The unlit element - you say you went on streeview and seen the signs on lamp posts.?

If you look at motorways these days you'll see lots of lamp posts (and streetview will show them). But go at night and you'll see that none of them work!

Could this be the case in your car park...

Chickabiddybex

It's possible but it's not close to where I live so I can't check. Also they could have been fixed since. I guess I could always ask for them to supply proof the lights were all working... Asking them to supply evidence they can't provide easily seems like a good POPLA winner.

I'll get on to writing this up - you guys are all superstars for what you do here by the way

Chickabiddybex

I submitted my appeal but I didn't know which boxes to tick so I left them blank is that ok? If not I'll email them saying which I meant to tick.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Yes i would resubmit your appeal by email just to be on the safe side, saying you are not liable for this parking charge, it shouldnt make any difference, but no point risking it

Umkomaas

Chickabiddybex wrote: »

I submitted my appeal but I didn't know which boxes to tick so I left them blank is that ok? If not I'll email them saying which I meant to tick.

I'd definitely tick at least one box. Normally we advise all three of the four (obviously not the car stolen one).

Don't give POPLA the chance to reject this on a technicality as basic as this (they're trying to clear a big backlog quickly, so they are looking to pick off the easiest ones as soon as possible).

Email them with your boxes for ticking.

Chickabiddybex

Done, thanks for the advice!

I'll post the decision here. Do you know roughly how long it takes to hear back?

Coupon-mad

To get a POPLA decision, two months approx., especially with Christmas in between.

hoohoo

Chickabiddybex wrote: »

Done, thanks for the advice!

I'll post the decision here. Do you know roughly how long it takes to hear back?

They just about cleared their backlog, so the normal 35 days...except that they are taking Christmas off. (see their November newsletter)

Chickabiddybex

Got my decision - they told ParkingEye to stuff it

THANK YOU EVERYONE AT MSE WHO HELPED!!!!!

"The appellant has made various representations; I have not dealt with them
all as I am allowing this appeal on the following ground.
It is the appellant’s case that the amount of the parking charge notice does
not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The signage produced in evidence by the operator states that a parking
charge notice would be issued for “failure to comply”. This wording appears
to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the
parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate
of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the
parking terms.
The operator submits that the amount of the parking charge is legally
enforceable on the following three grounds;
1. That there is a strong commercial justification for the charge.
2. That there is ample case law to suggest that the value of such a
parking charge is not punitive
3. That the charge is a genuine pre- estimate of loss.
The operator has cited case law to find that the charge is commercially
justifiable and that the charge cannot be considered a penalty. The operator
submits that the private management of car parks is commercially necessary
for landholders. The operator further submits that landholders have a right to
commercially manage their private land as they see fit to allow motorists to
use the land for parking under certain terms and conditions. The operator
states that this is commercially necessary as the landholder needs to manage
their land in order to ensure that their business can run successfully.
I find that the whole business model of an operator in respect of a particular
car park operation cannot in itself amount to commercial justification.

The operator has cited case law in order to submit that the value of the
parking charge is reasonable and not punitive. I find that each case is
different on its facts and it is not possible for me to allow an appeal based on
these short summaries.
The operator submits that that the pre- estimate of loss will depend on the
losses of themselves and the landholder. The operator submits that this will
vary on the time of the day, the day of the week and even upon the
weather. The operator submits that the losses incurred by them include, but
are not restricted to:
 Erection and maintenance of the signage
 Installation
 Monitoring and maintenance of the automatic number plate
recognition (ANPR) systems
 Employment of office based administrative staff
 Membership and other fees required to manage the business
effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general
costs including stationary, postage etc.
The operator has included day to day costs of running their business, which
does not amount to a genuine pre – estimate of loss. I find that the above list
submitted by the operator does not substantially reflect the loss suffered as a
result of the appellant’s breach.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me, I find that, the parking
charge sought is a sum by way of damages. I also find that the damages
sought on this particular occasion do not amount to a genuine pre- estimate
of loss or fall within commercial justification."

Chickabiddybex

DON'T LET PARKING-EYE'S SCARE TACTICS AND LIES GET TO YOU

They sent me stuff in the post and implied arguments from certain "online forums" won't work and it's a load of baldy locks!!!!

They then sent me half a tree's worth of paperwork with their so called "evidence" I hope it costs them a lot to post it.

What I put in my appeal regarding pre-estimate of loss:

The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss The wording on the signs appear 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 or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre. 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. Furthermore, I include an image of a letter from PE (Letter Extract 1) that admits their estimate of loss in each case is actually £53, including operating costs, and the charge they are seeking to impose in my case has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. By their own admission therefore it cannot be a true pre-estimate of loss. 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.

I hope this helps someone!