POPLA Letter Assistance

LCElsie_2

Hi All,

Brand new first time poster and of course my first post is requesting help.

Received a PCN recently from ParkingEye Ltd, appealed the PCN which (shock horror) they have let me know has been unsuccessful, so below is my letter to POPLA requesting that they allow my appeal. I have used this site as a guide.

If anybody who has a great big knowledge could spend 5 minutes reading this over and considering it I will be eternally grateful.

Thanks

LC





Dear Sir/Madam,



I am writing to youappealing the decision of ParkingEye Ltd with regard to PCN Number XXXXXXXXXXX –POPLA Verification Code XXXXXXXXXXXX



Through this appealI include and refer to copies of the following relevant documents:



1) Parking ChargeNotice served by ParkingEye Ltd to registered keeper (me) (attached).

2) My responseappeal letter to ParkingEye Ltd against the notice (attached).

3) Response letterfrom ParkingEye Ltd rejecting my appeal (attached).

4) BPA Ltd Code ofPractice (not attached)



ParkingEye Ltdalleges that on XX October 2013 the driver of a vehicle with registrationnumber XXXXXXXXX, of which I am the registered keeper, breached the parkingterms and conditions at the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. In turn, as the registered keeper, I receiveda Parking Charge Notice from ParkingEye Ltd on XX November 2013.



I appeal thedecision of ParkingEye Ltd on a number of grounds that I will set out below.



Punitive charge and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss



Upon visiting thesite to read the signage erected by ParkingEye Ltd I noted the wording “Failureto comply with the following will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. Whilst Iam not a lawyer, it is my understanding that the use of the words “Failure tocomply” indicates that the parking charge is damages for a breach of theparking contract and in turn the £100 charge must be a genuine pre-estimate ofloss. ParkingEye Ltd have failed to supply any breakdown of a genuine pre-estimateof loss. Instead, they have listed cases involving other car parks, with othercircumstances that arguably bear no relation to my own situation. Given theabove, I would therefore put forward that £100 charge is punitive and is not agenuine pre-estimate of loss.



Protection of Freedoms Act 2012



As you can clearly seefrom my letter of appeal to PakingEye Ltd I have requested that they identifywho the actual creditor is who is requesting the charge of £100. For ParkingEyeLtd to pursue keeper liability it is necessary for them to meet the conditionsset out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, schedule 4, paragraph 9. Asthey are required to by the act ParkingEye have identified themselves as thecreditor, however have provided no evidence to support or substantiate thisclaim. One would argue that until ParkingEye Ltd produces evidence that it isthe creditor, it cannot pursue the driver for any monies owing.



Insufficient evidence of a breach of parking terms andconditions and ANPR



In pursuit of thisParking Charge, ParkingEye Ltd are relying on the use of ANPR cameras. Thecameras have registered the entry and exit time of my vehicle from the carpark. The use of ANPR cameras in this way cannot be solely relied upon asevidence that my vehicle has entered into or breached any parking contract.They certainly have not evidenced that my vehicle occupied a parking space,that the driver of my vehicle read the terms and conditions of parking or thatthe driver of my vehicle accepted the terms and conditions and remained withinthe car park. Therefore, I would put forward that the reliance on ANPR in thisscenario is a far from robust as the time it takes to enter a car park, to thenpark a car, read the terms and conditions, decide to accept those terms andconditions and then exit the car park differ massively than actual parkingtime. This is supported by the Parking Charge Notice that points out that thiscar park has 0h0mins of free parking. Arguably, you are breaching the parkingterms and conditions by taking time to consider them. The signage in the carpark gives no indication of a “reasonable length of time…before you takeenforcement action” ( as required by BPA Ltd Code of Practice paragraph 13.4),therefore must be deemed unreasonable. The BPA Ltd Code of Practice calls forthe use of ANPR cameras as evidence to be reasonable, transparent andconsistent which in this situation ParkingEye Ltd have not.



Contractual Authority



It is my assertionthat ParkingEye Ltd do not have any contractual authority from thelandowner/landholder in question for the issue of or enforcement of the ParkingCharge Notice. The assertion is based on the fact that I have requestedevidence from ParkingEye Ltd to show that they have the legal capacity to enterinto a contract with the driver entering this car park or act as an agent on behalfof the landowner/landholder. ParkingEye Ltd have not produced any evidence tothe contrary.



In summary, It is mybelief that the Parking Charge Notice from ParkingEye Ltd is punitive and doesnot represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss; that ParkingEye Ltd have breachedschedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; that ParkingEye Ltd’s relianceon ANPR cameras does not give sufficient evidence of a breach of terms andconditions of parking taking place; that Parking Eye Ltd do not have thecontractual authority to issue or enforce Parking Charge Notices at this siteand have not produced any evidence to contest this. It is for these reasonsthat I call upon POPLA to allow this appeal.



Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye Notices do identify the creditor I am sure (they have the word 'creditor' in brackets somewhere after their name I think). So I wouldn't recommend that paragraph.

Have a look at the 'how to win at POPLA' link in the NEWBIES sticky thread I wrote last month - it's near the top of the forum, always, and has two recent ParkingEye POPLA appeals as examples I think. I am glad to see you have the likely winner in 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' and 'no contract/authority' as a back up but would also recommend adding some more compelling wording there, and a signage paragraph to make them have to submit maps/photos (where they sometimes go wrong).

LCElsie_2

Thanks coupon-mad. Great stuff. I thought I was pushing it a little with the creditor bit. I will rework slightly and repost and it would be amazing if you would take the time to have another scan over...it will probably be friday as I am away tomorrow. Thanks to all on the forum for the great advice...without it lots more people would line the pockets of these sub-humans, there letters are massively scary.

LCElsie_2

Not sure if I am posting this is in the right place,Mods feel free to move it.

Just a quick note to say thanks to Coupon Mad andother posters on this site, without giving us all the confidence to stand upfor ourselves through detailed suggestions and support I am not sure where wewould all be.
I am pleased to say to say that after adjusting theletter in the original post as per CM suggestions, POPLA found in my favour and I received aletter confirming this yesterday.

Oddly (or perhaps not to those with more knowledge),it doesn’t look as though Parking Eye even bothered to produce any evidence forthe appeal, as per the ‘Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination’:

“It is the Apellant’s case that the parking chargenotice was issued incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parkingcharge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parkingoccurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact,were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

XXXXX XXXXXX

Assessor”

Thanks again.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Well done you and thanks for updating. Another one where parking eye don't bother to reply

Coupon-mad

LCElsie wrote: »

Not sure if I am posting this is in the right place,Mods feel free to move it.

Just a quick note to say thanks to Coupon Mad andother posters on this site, without giving us all the confidence to stand upfor ourselves through detailed suggestions and support I am not sure where wewould all be.
I am pleased to say to say that after adjusting theletter in the original post as per CM suggestions, POPLA found in my favour and I received aletter confirming this yesterday.

Oddly (or perhaps not to those with more knowledge),it doesn’t look as though Parking Eye even bothered to produce any evidence forthe appeal, as per the ‘Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination’:

“It is the Apellant’s case that the parking chargenotice was issued incorrectly.

The Operator has not produced a copy of the parkingcharge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parkingoccurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact,were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

XXXXX XXXXXX

Assessor”

Thanks again.

Nice - PE have stopped bothering to defend these appeals that we write!