Parking Eye - St James retail Park Northampton

SARF

Hi,

My girlfriend was driving my company leased car and parked here to meet some friends at Starbucks and do a little window shopping.

The incident was on the 26th September. Our fleet manager received a notice that was issued on 5th December. This was obviously way over the 14 days that I thought they needed to notify you in.

My girlfriend did not have any receipts from the day as she does not keep receipts that old.

I appealed and have now received a POPLA verification code. I just want to make sure that I submit the POPLA appeal correctly and end this as swift as possible.

Therefore, can any of you fine people give me some advice on what to respond?!

Thanks

SARF

Just to say in the rejection letter they have included a number of legal cases relating to them not being a genuine pre-estimate of loss which they claim they have won. As well as several other pages of rebuttal.

Redx

just use the NEWBIES - READ THIS FIRST sticky thread and use the links to find suitable recent letters from drivers appealing to any PPC that fit the circumstances

here is one example so you see how its worded and set out https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

yeah, they will give you those, but conveniently they leave out all the ones they lost !!

or that other PPC`s lost !!

SARF

Thanks, will do. Do I need to word it slightly differently given it is a company lease car, so i am not the registered keeper?!

Redx

yes, I was just showing examples, but clearly you must make any reply fit your circumstances and PPC and the fact she was the driver seeing as it was a leased car

Coupon-mad

Yep - but you don't tell POPLA or the PPC that it was a leased car! Just start 'I am the driver and this is my appeal...' then use an adapted version of one of the examples you will have found on the ''Newbies Read this First'' sticky thread that Redx mentioned (not just the single one linked). Sticky threads are at the top of the forum for your info. You need to read 'How to win at POPLA' in the sticky thread mentioned.

Big_Bad_Dad

It's a good job your fleet manager handed the case to your partner and did not take the matter into his own hands as has happened in the past, paying it then taking unauthorised funds from the credit card or work wages. If that ever happens, it could have serious repercussions for the manager but at least this one is heading in the right direction.

All you need to know SARF is that the demand does not reflect losses to the client/landowner and is thereby unenforceable. If Parking Eye don't like it, POPLA will make them lump it.

SARF

Have just tried to submit my POPLA reply online, it asks for your verification code first but when I enter it I get "Verification Code Invalid"

Will it be easier to just submit via post using the POPLA form provided, or do I need to get the verification code validated before I do that?!

Cheers everyone.

Redx

hope your code doesnt have a P on the end, best check its valid by checking against the checker

also try a different web browser for submission

otherwise it needs to go by some form of tracked mail or get proof of posting if by snail mail

BUT it has to be with them before the 28 day deadline from the date in the verification code

Coupon-mad

SARF wrote: »

Have just tried to submit my POPLA reply online, it asks for your verification code first but when I enter it I get "Verification Code Invalid"

Will it be easier to just submit via post using the POPLA form provided, or do I need to get the verification code validated before I do that?!

Cheers everyone.

Please search the forum for the word 'invalid'. This glitch is covered loads of times - lots of posters panic about it. This simply means you have either tried to submit an appeal as 'evidence' (wrong part of the POPLA webpages) or you need to try a different browser.

The code won't have a P in it (that's a game a different PPC play, not ParkingEye).

Why not show us your draft POPLA appeal? Did you include the usual winning points about 'loss' and landowner contracts? YOU MUST.

SARF

Here is my draft, I've gone for the slightly shorter format, but please give me your thoughts and I will look into the other code issue as you suggest:

POPLA Verification Code. xxxxxxxxxx
PCN No. xxxxxxxxxx
Issued.5th December 2013
Reg. xxxxxxxx
Todays Date 6th January 2014

Dear POPLA,
I was the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxxxxxxx on the date of the incident and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds

1) The time taken to notify me of the incident is unreasonable. The incident happened on the 26th September 2013 and Parking Eye did not issue the notice until the 5th December 2013. This does not aid in identifying the driver at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the driver was using the Retail Park for its intended purpose, use of the coffee shop and to do some shopping. Unfortunately due to the time between incident and issue receipts were not kept.

2) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
This Operator 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 say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence

3) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. The £85 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the car park is free to use.
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 full 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. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

4) Proprietary Interest
The driver does not believe that Parking Eye has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. 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
The driver 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 (PCNs). 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 BPA code.
I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,
The registered Keeper