ParkingEye_Parking charge Brent south retail park

Coupon-mad

shahnooshi wrote: »

thanks a lot. i'll prepare the letter and will come back.

You said you are slightly scared? Be confident! Did you not read that we win 100% of the time at POPLA appeal? None lost against Parking Eye when the right info is given in a POPLA appeal; here are some examples to help with your draft:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Easy as pie.

shahnooshi

Hi guys,

I’ve prepared the below letter using the template and reading other threads.I put 2 points as wasn’t sure if all of them would be relevant. I went back tothe car park, it says maximum stay 3 hours and no return within 5 hours (maybe Ican elaborate on that) as I was fined for staying 3 hrs. 35 min.

Shall I include a copy of purchase as well?

Thanks again for your advice

---

"APPEAL RE: PPC Name CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2013, VEHICLE REG: **** ***

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing againstabove charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on thefollowing grounds and would ask that they are all considered.


1. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them tolevy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

2. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.

Here are the detailed appeal points.




1. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have“authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies arelimited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from acase in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012)where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eyehad exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practicesection 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clausesspecifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parkingcompany to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLAthat they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided“witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proofwhatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seenthe relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Irequire, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by aletter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalentof the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and therelevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit ofauthority of the parking company


2. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

the wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge representsdamages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in otherwords compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuinepre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from abreach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parkingrevenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of thelosses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss inorder to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown ofhow these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a lossresulting from the alleged breach.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement(for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still havebeen the same and, therefore, may not be included.

Furthermore, I attach a letter from Parking Eye in correspondence to myappeal and in paragraph C , it admitsthat their estimate of cost in each case is actually £53, including operatingcosts, and this that the charge they are seeking to impose in my case has aconsiderable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. Bytheir own admission, therefore, it cannot, be a true pre-estimate of loss

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an elementof profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.

This concludes my appeal.



Thanks

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

Looks fine to me, you dont need to bother with a copy of your purchase as it isnt relevent

shahnooshi

Hi Guys,

I just want to say you are amazing and thank you so much for all your support

I just heard back from POPLA and my appeal has been successful.

They have now cancelled the ticket. Below are the full details:



PARKINGON PRIVATELANDAPPEALS



***** (Appellant)

-v-

ParkingEye Ltd (Operator)


The Operator issued parking charge notice number ******** arisingout of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark *****.


The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.

The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determinedthat the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.


The Operator should now cancel the parking charge noticeforthwith.


Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination

Itis the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.


TheOperator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidenceto show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence thatshows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

AccordinglyI have no option but to allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Well done - just as we said, easy as pie! Please spread the word to friends & relatives now you know the score!