Parking Eye Fine - Aire Street, Leeds

Folkiedave

Start your own thread and read the stickies at the top. But start at the latest - I suspect you have been reading old threads.

When they refused your appeal did they include a POPLA code?

When was this?

Coupon-mad

rita-rabbit wrote: »

I got a Parking Eye `fine' recently - Morrisons Supermarket car park (no unfortunately I didn't do a shop in that store that day!)

I wrote a letter clearly refusing to pay due to unfair/excessive charging. I did not say I was appealing (following martins guidance). I received a letter back stating that my appeal had been refused! This document also included several judgements that gone against other people where they had gone to court - I hadn't appealed - do I have to pay now or what exactly (gutted.com)?!

Tell us in a new thread what your plan is for your POPLA appeal wording then, after reading the 'NEWBIES READ THIS FIRST!' and 'Successful Complaints about PPCs' sticky threads please. On this forum we have to keep cases on separate threads due to dates/details differing, but equally the sticky threads at the top already answer your question.

If you have a POPLA code and don't use it you'd have thrown away your 'golden ticket' to win, seeing as we win every time here. See the Newbies thread for 'How to win at POPLA'.

lucilemcneil

As predicted the appeal was rejected by Parking Eye, so I have drafted my POPLA appeal below. Am I right in thinking that it's along the same lines as my appeal to parking eye?

I've read up on the Parking Cowboys website as well as the stickies in this forum and I understand the more grounds you refute it on the stronger the appeal. Is there anything else you think I should add? Really appreciate the help!

Appeal....

1) Unclear signage
The vehicle was parked in the Aire Street car park on Friday 22 November at 7.46pm, and remained there for 36 minutes, the driver returned at 8.22pm. The tariff next to the ticket machine nearest the vehicle states that charges apply Monday – Friday between the hours of 8am-6pm, please see photo evidence (attached). There is no barrier or a clearly marked boundary signifying which area of the car park this applies to.

2) The amount charged is disproportionate to the loss
The amount Parking Eye are proposing to charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Parking Eye Car Park Management and any landowners and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. The vehicle was left on the understanding it was parked legally outside of the chargeable hours of 8am – 6pm.

bod1467

A POPLA appeal needs a lot more meat than that. And ignore anything that involves mitigating circumstances - whilst they may be reasonable they are ultimately irrelevant, as it is points of law/fact that will win the appeal.

Your point 2 is a silver bullet (GPEoL). You should also include No Authority.

Check out some other POPLA appeal drafts on here for example wording.

Coupon-mad

lucilemcneil wrote: »

As predicted the appeal was rejected by Parking Eye, so I have drafted my POPLA appeal below. Am I right in thinking that it's along the same lines as my appeal to parking eye?

I've read up on the Parking Cowboys website as well as the stickies in this forum and I understand the more grounds you refute it on the stronger the appeal. Is there anything else you think I should add? Really appreciate the help!

Appeal....

1) Unclear signage
The vehicle was parked in the Aire Street car park on Friday 22 November at 7.46pm, and remained there for 36 minutes, the driver returned at 8.22pm. The tariff next to the ticket machine nearest the vehicle states that charges apply Monday – Friday between the hours of 8am-6pm, please see photo evidence (attached). There is no barrier or a clearly marked boundary signifying which area of the car park this applies to.

2) The amount charged is disproportionate to the loss
The amount Parking Eye are proposing to charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred by Parking Eye Car Park Management and any landowners and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. The vehicle was left on the understanding it was parked legally outside of the chargeable hours of 8am – 6pm.

Read the 'how to win at POPLA' link in the NEWBIES sticky thread that I already signposted you to before. You need more and there are example POPLA appeals linked there you can use.

lucilemcneil

Is this better? Thanks in advance!


I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxx xxxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge.

I have researched the matter, taken legal advice and would like to point out the following as my appeal against said charge:

1) Unclear and misleading signage.
The driver entered the car park at 19:46 on Friday 22nd November. The car parking notices are poorly lit and are above eye level. The driver noted on the tariff above the ticket machine that chargeable hours were Monday-Friday 8am – 6pm (see photo attached), leading them to believe that their car was parked outside of these hours. The driver returned to the car 36 minutes later.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand.

I require that the Operator provides documentary evidence and signage map/photos on this point, lighting at night, colours used in cases of driver colour blindness and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.


2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the signage states that charges apply Monday-Friday 8am – 6pm.
In the appeal Parking Eye did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, admin, operating costs. parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

3) Proprietary Interest
As the registered keeper I do not believe that Parking Eye has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking Eye's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

lucilemcneil

Also - I would add this under the GPEOL point (2)....

This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty. And in my case this was a free car park with no payment due whatsoever.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

ParkingEye and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

No doubt ParkingEye will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''

My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.

Coupon-mad

Yep that should all be enough to win it (the 'usual PE template bluster' thing was one of mine that a particularly enjoyed typing!). Submit it online and tick 3 out of 4 appeal grounds (just not the stolen car one).

Merry Christmas - you should win this by February!

patriciabucket

Hi,

I have been done by the same car park. I parked directly under the sign which stated to pay and display 8am -6pm. I received a parking fine in the post. I have since been back today to take photos if this sign and it is now gone. I think I must be going mad!

Does anyone have a photo of this sign used in their appeal that they could send to me?

Best wishes

Coupon-mad

Here's your thread - did you not see it? This is where you post about your case, not on other threads:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4910425

You don't need the sign to win a POPLA appeal v ParkingEye.

PLEASE DON'T REPLY ON THIS THREAD AS IT'S LUCILEMCNEIL'S THREAD WHICH IS WHY YOUR LAST POST WAS REMOVED FROM HERE.