Parking Eye Fine - Aire Street, Leeds

bingley_blue

first time poster, so apologies for hijacking this or if this should be in a thread of its own.
We too have fallen foul of Parking Eye at Aire Street in Leeds, after paying £4.50 for the privilege on a Saturday afternoon, but apparently the 8am -6pm charge doesn't mean there are no charges after this time. We left at 18:52 and so received a PCN through the post

Our appeal to Parking Eye was unsurprisingly rejected, so the next step is to POPLA (we have a code) I've drafted my POPLA appeal after reading previous posts on here, so was hoping for some guidance from the people in the know on here

I am the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxxxx 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 16:29:32 on 20th June 2015. 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 and Saturday and Sunday 8am - 6pm (see photo attached). They purchased a ticket for the weekend tariff of £4.50, leading them to believe that they had paid up to the chargeable time, and that charges did not apply after this time. The driver left the car park at 18:52:06.
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 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 and Saturday and Sunday 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.
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.
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

any comments would be most appreciated

Northlakes

Your POPLA appeal needs tidying up a bit and start your own thread please. One thread per case. An expert will help sort out your appeal.

bingley_blue

Many thanks, I will

b0nex

Hi all,
First of all, thank you for this great forum. It has proven to be a formidable place to share experiences and knowledge.
I am using this thread as I have received a PCN from the PPC Parking eye in exactly the same car park.
The situation is the following:
The driver parked in the Aire Stree car park in Leeds on Monday 31st of August at 13:29. One of the drivers parking at that time paid with the online application and was given a full day cover (might be because it was bank holiday). After, reading the sign above the machine which stated ‘Mon-Fri 8am – 6pm with the tariff below’ the driver paid £4.5 considering that would cover for the whole day (this is the exact amount paid online by the other driver), but the ticket showed an expiry time of 16:29. The driver left the parking at 16:48.
Two weeks later I received a PCN of £100 for the 19 minutes exceeded.
I have followed the guidance in the newbies thread and used the template to appeal to Parking Eye which has been already rejected.
This is my try for the POPLA; any advice of guidance would be appreciated. Bingley blue, I have copied some of your paragraphs. I hope it does not bother you. English is my second language and this appeal has been a total pain to me.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this appeal will probe that I am not liable for the parking charge. The grounds for this appeal are the following:
a) Misleading tariffs and signage.
The driver entered the car park at 13:29 on 31st of August 2015, bank holiday. The driver noted on the tariff that chargeable hours were Monday-Friday 8am-6pm and Saturday and Sudnday 8am-6pm. Nothing mentioned about the chargeable amount during bank holidays. The previous transactions though the paybyphone online application leaded the driver to believe that the weekend tariff of £4.5 applied as other drivers in the car pak at the time received such tariff in that exact date. The driver left the car park at 16:48.
I require that the operator provides documentary evidence of the consistency in the tariff applied in the cark park, both in the ticket machine and online.
b) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In its parking charge notice, ParkingEye has failed to sufficient evidence to justify the £100 loss the landowner might have incurred for the extra 19 minutes the car was parked in its property. For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Parkin 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 should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.
This charge from ParkingEye is a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
POPLA and ParkinEye will be also 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". My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.
c) Proprietary Interest
Parking Eye has not provided enough evidence of their interest in the land as they have no legal possession which would give ParkingEye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. 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

Thank you in advance guys

Umkomaas

You do need to start a new thread of your own, as we work on the basis of 'one case, one thread' so advice doesn't become confused and/or we have a complete free for all with any number of random cases being tagged on.

Please - add some paragraphing to your posts, the massive text box above will definitely put people off reading, which will result in you not getting all the help available.

MissRB

Does anybody have a picture of the board at this car park as I don't live in Leeds so can't go and get one myself. Thanks in advance