ParkingEye. Letter before county Court

Coupon-mad

Please don't only look at that blue link given by Stroma - please, please take an example from the other thread mentioned. Nothing about Planning Permission in your POPLA appeal please or I will scream (too many posters today not looking at the 'How to win at POPLA' linked examples in the 'Newbies read this first' thread and instead just grabbing the first link they see).

So please read 'How to win at POPLA' in the ''Newbies read this first'' sticky thread then show us your adapted POPLA appeal using an example as a base. In fact 'How to win at POPLA' already includes that first link - but only for information, it is NOT meant to be a template for every situation.

And well done for clawing this back to a certain POPLA win now, after a LBCCC in your first post! Did my letter achieve that (surprised me if so!) or did you name the driver to get it back to POPLA stage?!

4consumerrights

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And well done for clawing this back to a certain POPLA win now, after a LBCCC in your first post! Did my letter achieve that (surprised me if so!) or did you name the driver to get it back to POPLA stage?!

IMO - I think it was your letter CM - it was a blinder of a letter succinct and pointed and may be worth linking in the NEWBIE thread - with a view to adapt and use when LBCC or court papers are issued for Parking Eye cases.


@Ken979 - you must research and do a well worded POPLA appeal - even though GPEOL is winning 100% cases at the moment - a new assessor could change that. Look at plenty of threads and read a few POPLA wins as well as all links in the NEWBIE thread for POPLA.

ken979

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And well done for clawing this back to a certain POPLA win now, after a LBCCC in your first post! Did my letter achieve that (surprised me if so!) or did you name the driver to get it back to POPLA stage?!

It was you Coupon Mad

It was the last letter that you help me edit:D I didn't do anything else. I think they knew they were going to lose in County Court, based on the letter's we sent them.

Coupon-mad

I have now linked that letter into the LBCCC fightback thread and the Newbies thread.

Slightly amazed at such a good outcome to a mere letter - but so happy it worked and now you will win when you draft an appeal based on our 'How to win at POPLA' link!

hoohoo

Congratulations ken979 and coupon-mad.

Here is your winning POPLA appeal.

I wish to appeal on the grounds that the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and that ParkingEye have not provided a breakdown of costs.

ParkingEye's standard contract with the landowner states in clause 3.11 that all amounts paid by motorist for breach of contract are retained as a service charge and that a VAT only invoice will be raised for this. This clearly shows that the logical transaction is that the breach of contract monies are paid to the landowner and then an equivalent amount paid back to parkingeye as a service charge. As these amounts are identical they cancel out and no actual money changes hands apart from the VAT on the service charge.

This establishes that the money for breach of contract is paid to the landowner and that in this particular instance it is therefore the landowners losses which need to be considered, and not any other party such as ParkingEye.

The landowner has suffered zero, or negligible losses due to the parking event.

Any costs incurred by ParkingEye are not relevant. The contract with the landowner does not require the landowner to reimbuse any costs to ParkingEye.

In the event that ParkingEye supply a contract other than their standard contract, it is still clear that ParkingEye's costs are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss as their published 2012 accounts show a 30% profit on monies received from breach of contract. ParkingEye's 2012 accounts show turnover of £13,916,437, cost of sales and other operating income £1,849,579 and administration costs £7,589,764 leaving a profit of £4,477,094



You can download a copy of parkingeye's standard contract to send to POPLA from here.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/parking_management_2

poppytinks

i have just received one from PE my wife was driving a hire car and was 24 minutes over the time 3 limt which at Christmas is redicilous and the fact she could not find the car in the busy carp park as it was not hers, should i really or ignore it.

The_Slithy_Tove

poppytinks wrote: »

i have just received one from PE my wife was driving a hire car and was 24 minutes over the time 3 limt which at Christmas is redicilous and the fact she could not find the car in the busy carp park as it was not hers, should i really or ignore it.

1. Please start your own thread rather than hijacking one which is not really related to your own case.
2. Have you even read the thread you have added your request to? I can't believe so if you think that ignoring is the way to go.
3. Read the sticky thread NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? EVEN AN OLD ONE? ***READ THIS FIRST*** Thankyou! at the top of the forum - tells you most of what you need to know.

ken979

This has taken me a whole 2 days to do, It's doing my head in but it will be worth once I win :D:D

Please feedback is really appreciated as I don't know what I'm doing

---

Dear POPLA Assessor,
ParkingEye verification code xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper I wish my appeal to be considered on the following grounds:

[FONT=&quot]1) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2) No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4). Camera Technology is not compliant with the BPA code of practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
[/FONT]
1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
ParkingEye states that I have breached the terms and conditions of parking. The issue is the car park is free and do not require you to pay for a ticket. The Shopping Centre makes money from people spending money which more than covers there cost. There is no damage or obstruction caused, so there is no loss arising from the incident. The British Parking Association Code of Practice States that a charge of a genuine pre-estimate of loss must represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event, so this charge has breached the code and is unenforceable. In the appeal Parking Eye did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £85 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. For this charge to be justified a 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 £85. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver. This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


[FONT=&quot]2) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers[/FONT]


The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices . As ParkingEye are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish ParkingEye to provide me with a full copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract. Please note that a 'Witness Statement' to the effect that a contract is in place between ParkingEye and the landowner will be insufficient and only The Deed of Title in the land would do. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between ParkingEye and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that ParkingEye can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer. 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. This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking eye. The driver expects Parking Eye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the British Parking Association code. I refer to the recent court case where ParkingEye lost to Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013. ParkingEye have breached the BPA Code of Practice section 7 and failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

3)[FONT=&quot]The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver[/FONT]
The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. This has failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. If a contract is to be formed, upon entering the site a driver must be able to read, understand and agree to the terms and conditions. A driver could not stop in order to read the signs as they enter the road as they by doing so they would block the junction. Any alleged contract would be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. Signs are generally positioned to face oncoming traffic, rather than parallel to it. The signs are all and are sporadically placed and mainly parallel.

4. FAILED TO COMPLY WITH INITIAL REQUEST FOR A POPLA CODE and Unfair terms.
[FONT=&quot]I kept getting sent generic templated letters from ParkingEye refusing me to provide me with a Popla Code. They kept sending me all these standard template letters stating lies and twisting the truth stating I was not allowed a Popla Code, when clearly I was aloud it in the first place. Because of the Breach To Popla I should get this[/FONT][FONT=&quot] charge dismissed. There are many of these cases on the Pubic Domain. A Quote from one of there template letters:[/FONT]
“4) As court proceedings have not begun, and as no defence has been filed, it is impossible for ParkingEye to state exactly what documents will be relied on in court.”[FONT=&quot] When trying to take me to County Court: [/FONT]The Practice Direction states the person taking me to court must provide a list of the documents ParkingEye intends to rely on to prove their claim towards me and I am entitled to be told what those documents are. They tried to bully me and stated they don’t have to.

[FONT=&quot]5)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ParkingEye is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I question the entire reliability of ParkingEye Camera system. It has to comply with The BPA code of practice and require ParkingEye to provide the follow evidence. This is taken from the British Code of Practice, which contains the following[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]• be registered with the Information Commissioner[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]• keep to the Data Protection Act[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours faithfully,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]THE REGISTERED KEEPER[/FONT]

---

I think it’s terrible but I gave it my best shot : ( It seems really cut and paste.

Thanks for telling me about the 5th point and 'UKPC' : ) Edit already

Coupon-mad

''Please feedback is really appreciated as I don't know what I'm doing''


Doesn't look bad at all at first glance, except your title says 'UKPC' which is another PPC altogether, and you have 5 points but only 4 in the top summary!

Redx

you have a good appeal there but there are 4 bullet points and 5 expanded paragraphs, so the 2 dont match at all

cant be much to fix it though