Parking Eye penalty charge

hoohoo

nigelbb wrote: »

Whitlingham Country Park is one of the very few pay & display car parks in the country where it is possible to 'top up' before departing so there is really no excuse for not paying. It's managed in a partnership between Whitlingham Charitable Trust and the Broads Authority. Payment for car parking helps support Whitlingham Charitable Trust in maintaining the Country Park and in providing Rangers to help look after it.

PE only get any money by levying their outrageous charges. As the price for parking all day is only £5 and even an Annual Permit is only £30 then the £100/£60 demanded by PE is a ludicrous & unwarranted penalty. How can the loss sustained by PE be 2-3 times the price of a car parking there all year?

So once your son and his friends have got their charge cancelled I would suggest a £5 donation each to Whitlingham Charitable Trust would ensure that the Trust do not lose out.

NorwichMCN

My exact thinking too nigelbb

NorwichMCN

Hi again,

As expected the appeal to PE was unsuccessful - PE's response was that we did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the signage were not broken and that our arguement that the amount claimed for breach of contract should reflect the lossess incurred by the breach is no longer the method adopted by Judges when deciding whether a charge is a penalty or not. We will now start the POPLA appeal process.

Your thoughts on the draft appeal below would be appreciated (taken in part from a previously posted appeal letter)

Dear Sir,

I am unable to compete the tick box to state why I am appealing as I am objecting on the points made below and would ask for your consideration of my appeal against the Parking Charge Notice.

Pre-Estimation of Actual Losses

ParkingEye state in their letter of rejection that the parking charge represents a contractual breach. Under established contract law a party can only claim for their actual or pre-estimated losses arising directly from a breach of contract.

ParkingEye have not supplied any evidence or breakdown of such losses, and the blanket charge for any contravention of the terms in the signage suggests no such calculation has been considered. Further to this, as ParkingEye are not the landowner there can be no other material loss to them for any contravention of the parking terms stated in the signage.

In light of the above points this charge is clearly a punitive penalty charge, which ParkingEye have no authority to issue. The £60 charge (rising to £100 after 14 days) is clearly an arbitrary value and not a fair calculation representing true losses arising from this breach. Based on the daily parking permit cost at Whitlingham Country Park of £5 a £100 charge represents a 1000% increase on loss of earning than could be expected from the cost of parking alone, evidently grossly disproportionate. I contest that this charge is punitive and evidently outside of contract law.
If the Parking Charge is instead argued to be a contractually agreed sum (which the wording of the appeal rejection letter implies it is not; it is citing breach of terms and conditions), the BPA Code of Practice states this cannot be punitive or excessive, which a charge of the amount stated clearly is.
Consumer Contracts Regulations

Private Parking Company charges are unfair terms (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the outcome”.

Thank you for considering this appeal. I await your decision in due course

Redx

here is one example of a popla appeal https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

here is another but tailored for excel at the peel centre, but the standard 3 appeal points are in there too https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64393064#Comment_64393064


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

that was in here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

the 3 standard points being, but not limited to

1) this charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) you do not have the authority or permission to issue invoices at this location

so all those should be included, plus the short bullet point numbering scheme followed by the larger expanded points below, as in those appeals like guys-dad`s

NorwichMCN

Hi Redx,

A really big thank you for the pointers, I have completed the online submission and will update the forum once I hear back.

Half_way

All the best, when the popla letter comes back ( assuming it goes the right way - which it should by reading the above) it may be worth letting the car park owners know, and letting them know just who, or what they have gotten into bed with.