Parking Eye PCN - Closed Retail Park

Guys_Dad

Of course it is rubbish, but they would say that in order to get £££ out of you.

Did you get a POPLA code? If not, we need to get straight back to them.

danny27

i have received a page with popla on it and it has my name to fill in and that as has pcn number printed on it vehicle reg and operator name and had they date they sent it to me at the bottom and a 10 digit verification code

i take it this is correct

Guys_Dad

OK. Now time to write your POPLA appeal.

danny27

Just noticed they have put at the bottom on the letter they sent me as a goodwill gesture they will extend the early payment settlement by 14 days haha

yea gonna get working on it this weekend i will hopefully have a draft to upload Sunday/Monday night

Guys_Dad

Take a look at this thread I started and others worked on. https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

Take your time and use what points you think relevant and add in any other specific points you want to make.

I recommend following the format of listing the points at the front then expanding them as in the example.

Coupon-mad

There's also this thread of examples which includes the above thread in the links:

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

danny27

Firstly id like to thank you for your time and help, here is my first POPLA draft -

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

POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Car Park:
Alleged Contravention Date and Time:
Date of Notice:
Parking Charge Amount:

Dear POPLA assessor,

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above, I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner
4. Trespass
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. Business Rates
7. ANPR Accuracy

1. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss - The Amount of (Amount) demanded by ParkingEye Ltd. is not 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. As this is a free car park and the stores on site were closed at the time there can be no losses incurred from onsite parking charges or retail revenue. I request ParkingEye Ltd. to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of (Amount).

As in previous cases the parking company as included day to day running costs of the business (for example Wages, Uniforms, Signage erection, Installation of ANPR cameras, Office Costs) these would of occurred had there been a breach or not and therefore may not be included in the pre-estimate of loss.

It would therefore follow that this charges are Punitive and have and 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 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

2. Signage - Following the receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. The signage at entrance of the car park has no lighting and doesn't have a reflective background, this makes it possible for drivers to enter the car park with out seeing the signs thus no contract can be formed between the driver and ParkingEye Ltd. The entrance sign is also situated on the passenger side of the road on a standard right hand UK car, this makes it difficult for the driver to see or read from inside the car regardless of which side of the road the car park is entered from. All these reasons make it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signage upon entering especially at night when my vehicle was parked.

Under Appendix B Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'Signs should be readable and understandable at all times ,including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.'

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

3. Contract with Landowner - ParkingEye Ltd. do not own this car park and are merely agents of the owner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters ParkingEye Ltd. have provided me with no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put ParkingEye Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand that ParkingEye Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the ParkingEye Ltd.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges , through the courts if necessary.

4. Trespass - Without a contract, the most appropriate offence would be of civil trespass. If this was the case, the remedy would be to award damages to ParkingEye Ltd. given there was no damage to the car park and ParkingEye Ltd. do not own the car park there can be no loss to ParkingEye Ltd.

5. Unlawful Penalty Charge - Since there is no demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract as been 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. ParkingEye Ltd. could state the letter as a invoice or request for monies, yet they choose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to be deemed as a official parking fine such as the ones issued by Police and local authorities.

[FONT=&amp]6. Business Rates -[/FONT][FONT=&amp] As the car park is being used for the purpose of running a business by ParkingEye Ltd., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for ParkingEye Ltd., I do not believe that ParkingEye Ltd. 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 Ltd. to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at (Car Park Name) 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp] [/FONT]
7. ANPR Accuracy - Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking companies to make sure ANPR equipment is maintained and in correct working order. I require ParkingEye Ltd. to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated and maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important as the parking charge issued is founded on 2 photos of my vehicle entering the car park and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that parking eye produce evidence in response to these points.

This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if ParkingEye Ltd. fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.

Yours Faithfully,

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

any help of anything i should change, remove, adjust or add in is greatly appreciated,

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

That should do the job as it is. I would just suggest if you want to chop & change anything I would remove the trespass section as PE don't allege trespass anyway and it lends nothing to your argument that you haven't already said about loss.

I do have this example I wrote the other day if you fancy rubbing PE's noses in it by citing the cases of Sharma and Gardam under the contract with landowner/no legal standing section and Fox-Jones under the ANPR section. Feel free to plagiarise sentnces if you want them:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63857139#Comment_63857139

You don't have to have breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008 unless you want to add it to make PE jump through more hoops.

And bear in mind I wrote that version a little flippantly...as you will see from some of the wording...even the 'fake PCN' heading to alert them to a forum-led appeal! I was just having fun with that one and laying it on thick.

Tinkerbell60

Was this appeal successful?

Tinkerbell60

Sorry for some reason I didnt see the dates. If you could let me know how you got on I would be interested to hear. This thread and others have been more useful than my own.