ParkingEye. Letter before county Court

ken979

Does anyone know ParkingEye's email address? I think it would be a good idea to send it by email, so it buys me more time and then I can follow it up by post with a letter with certificate of posting.

Umkomaas

ken979 wrote: »

Does anyone know ParkingEye's email address? I think it would be a good idea to send it by email, so it buys me more time and then I can follow it up by post with a letter with certificate of posting.

If this is a POPLA appeal (sorry, with 49 posts already I'm not going back to the start to find out), then you don't want to be sending this to PE - it needs to go to POPLA.

Again, if it is a POPLA appeal, I don't know what your deadline for submission of it is, but whatever, do not miss that.

Coupon-mad

ken979 wrote: »

Does anyone know ParkingEye's email address? I think it would be a good idea to send it by email, so it buys me more time and then I can follow it up by post with a letter with certificate of posting.

This is a POPLA appeal, don't throw away your win by not submitting it to POPLA! A POPLA appeal goes online (as per PE's letter) to POPLA not PE.

4consumerrights

Minor points - suggestions:

There are a couple of minor spelling/grammatical errors throughout - so double check.

With regard to the headings and start of each paragrpah - make them all uniform in size.

You started the appeal as registered keeper - but section 3 relating to the driver and the signage infers that you are driver - needs a sentence to link distance: eg. "The registered keeper has been informed that the driver on the day...... " or "Upon re-visiting the site, it is clearly apparent that the driver on the day...".

I don't think (without re-reading whole thread again) that the alleged overstay has been mentioned. This could be included regarding grace periods etc and code of practice. May also be relevant with planning consents (PE have frequently reduced free parking in breach of local planning consents). Planning consent is also required for the use of ANPR - so a short paragraph here also (make them jump through a few more hoops!).

Your point 4 - failure to supply POPLA code and Unfair Terms - you did not elaborate on Unfair terms.

I am not sure also whether I would personally include the bit about court papers being served etc. - However I would still leave in the bit regarding failure to supply the POPLA code earlier!

The ANPR section could also include the court case where parking eye lost as it was thrown out as being unrealiable:

ParkingEye v Fox-Jones
8 Nov 2013
Case dismissed when the judge said the evidence form ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed as it had not addressed a (complicated) point in the defence, calling into question the reliability of the ANPR system.

It seems that the basic defence point that won here, was that a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The PE wifi introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" isn't really "live", hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore the ANPR "evidence" was unreliable and the whole case depended upon it.

Have you checked the validity of the POPLA code - when it was issued and how long you have to use it.

Pranksters blog here gives breakdown of the code:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/what-does-my-popla-code-mean.html

The POPLA code is strictly time sensitive for 28 days so ensure that your appeal is submitted on-line before then.

From experience (and confirmed by others) the automatic acknowledgement received back from POPLA merges the contents of appeal into one long continuous paragraph.

Do check that nothing has been cut off. This can then be overcome by e-mailing POPLA stating this fact (using the same POPLA code) and attaching the POPLA appeal (code on each page) as a word document - note PDF is unreadable by POPLA for this.

ken979

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This is a POPLA appeal, don't throw away your win by not submitting it to POPLA! A POPLA appeal goes online (as per PE's letter) to POPLA not PE.

Does that mean, I no longer have to reply to Parking Eyes 14 days request? If that is so then that is excellent:j. From what I gather all I need to do is reply to poppa within 28 days and I will be fine.

I guess I don,t have to register with POPLA as parkingeye has done that for me.

I want to double check as I don,t want to make a mistake. It,s not worth losing after all the work I have done. Sorry for the silly questions:(

Redx

not sure you have read the last few paragraphs since the rules of your "game changed"

maybe you have not read the walk through in the newbies thread ?

at this stage you have a popla code I assume from the above ?

so from now on you, and only you , deal with popla

popla know nothing about this until you send in your popla appeal using the popla reference on your paperwork from the PPC

you have 28 days to get it in from the date included in that popla reference (which can be checked using pranksters blog or pepipoo etc)

this deadline is sacrosanct so you need to get on with this NOW , sort out your popla appeal , send it in or submit it before your deadline runs out with them and make sure you get an acknowledgement and an appeal date for the assessor to deal with it

there is no need to contact the PPC , anything you submit goes into popla

time is of the essence in this, so you need to get a grip, get on with it and YOU send it to popla ASAP

follow the advice in the last few posts , and only deal with popla

PE will not do this for you or help in any way

any questions ? ( hope not )

ps:- having read through this I have no idea what any 14 day reply to PE is about, once you have a popla code there is no reason to talk to PE any further and I have no idea why you would do so

POPLA is what you concentrate on now, not PE , so please , please , PLEASE amend that popla appeal according to the subsequent posts asap !! ie:- please concentrate on popla , not PE , I cannot stress enough how important this is

what is your "deadline" day for popla ? ( 28 days from the date contained in your popla reference on the popla sheet)

the appeal has to be WITH POPLA by that date , not in the post or pending or still on your kitchen table !! capiche ?

ken979

4consumerrights wrote: »

Minor points - suggestions:
I don't think (without re-reading whole thread again) that the alleged overstay has been mentioned. This could be included regarding grace periods etc and code of practice. May also be relevant with planning consents (PE have frequently reduced free parking in breach of local planning consents). Planning consent is also required for the use of ANPR - so a short paragraph here also (make them jump through a few more hoops!).

Can some one in forum point me to more resource's to the above. I think I have information gap and not quite understand or write it and put it together. If i have more details regarding the above, I think i could put something together.

@Hello 4consumerrights,

Thanks for the feedback and I have ream-mended some points based on you advice and be posting soon.

Redx

4) is in a right mess and doesnt match up with bullet point 4 which is about camera technology, not pe `s useless documentation or missing codes

they should both match , and maybe a 6) to deal with all the other issues with parking eye , like missing popla code etc

so make the two 4`s match and try adding complaints about PE as 6) ?

and despite being asked several times, you have not confirmed the 28th day after the popla code by verification

please try answering ALL POINTS raised , not one in three , thanks

ken979

Redx wrote: »

not sure you have read the last few paragraphs since the rules of your "game changed"

maybe you have not read the walk through in the newbies thread ?

at this stage you have a popla code I assume from the above ?

so from now on you, and only you , deal with popla

popla know nothing about this until you send in your popla appeal using the popla reference on your paperwork from the PPC

you have 28 days to get it in from the date included in that popla reference (which can be checked using pranksters blog or pepipoo etc)

this deadline is sacrosanct so you need to get on with this NOW , sort out your popla appeal , send it in or submit it before your deadline runs out with them and make sure you get an acknowledgement and an appeal date for the assessor to deal with it

there is no need to contact the PPC , anything you submit goes into popla

time is of the essence in this, so you need to get a grip, get on with it and YOU send it to popla ASAP

follow the advice in the last few posts , and only deal with popla

PE will not do this for you or help in any way

any questions ? ( hope not )

ps:- having read through this I have no idea what any 14 day reply to PE is about, once you have a popla code there is no reason to talk to PE any further and I have no idea why you would do so

POPLA is what you concentrate on now, not PE , so please , please , PLEASE amend that popla appeal according to the subsequent posts asap !! ie:- please concentrate on popla , not PE , I cannot stress enough how important this is

what is your "deadline" day for popla ? ( 28 days from the date contained in your popla reference on the popla sheet)

the appeal has to be WITH POPLA by that date , not in the post or pending or still on your kitchen table !! capiche ?

Hello Redx,

I will crack on ASAP!!! . Thank you as this has clarified things for me. I have looked back at the letter and they were talking about a14 days discount period. I made a mistake and thought it was 14 days to reply or something. Thanks for the advice. I love this forum!!!!!

ken979

Updated letter

For some reason pasting the letter from my word document to this forum, the formatting is coming out strange. The word document looks great

---

Dear POPLA Assessor,
ParkingEye verification code xxxxxxxxxx

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

1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2. No landowner contract or legal standing to form contracts.
3. The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
4. Failed to comply with initial request for POPLA Code and Unfair terms.
5. ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3



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.

2. No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

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.

3. The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver

Upon re-visiting the site, it is clearly apparent that the driver on the day has noticed ParkingEye has 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.


4. Failed to comply with initial request for POPLA Code and Unfair terms.

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 charge dismissed. There are many of these cases on the Pubic Domain. A Quote from one of there template letters:

“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.”
When trying to take me to County Court: 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.

5. ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3

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:

21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
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.
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.
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.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• 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.

ParkingEye v Foz-Jones
8 Nov 2013

Case dismissed when the judge said the evidence form ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed as it had not addressed a (complicated) point in the defence, calling into question the reliability of the ANPR system.
It seems that the basic defence point that won here, was that a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The PE wifi introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" isn't really "live", hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore the ANPR "evidence" was unreliable and the whole case depended upon it.


This is therefore an unenforceable penalty and I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER

---

More feedback please
Thanks Redx I have re edited ; )