Parking Eye - St James retail Park Northampton

SARF

Oh and for the issue date do I put the date I was initially notified 5th Dec or the date they turned down appeal and send POPLA code 31st Dec?!

Coupon-mad

Issue date is 5th December.


I was the registered keeper of vehicle reg xxxxxxxx

{no you were not} Should be:

I was the usual 'keeper' of vehicle reg xxxxxxxx as defined in POFA 2012 but cannot be sure who the driver was on this occasion. From the limited information given, it is my honest belief that I was not the driver. Therefore I wish to point out that I am appealing as 'keeper' only.


This bit contradicts itself so change this:

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.

to this:

The incident allegedly happened on the 26th September 2013 and the company Fleet Manager only received a notice that was issued on 5th December. This does not aid in identifying the driver at the time of the incident and ParkingEye have not explained the long delay. In the absence of proof that a compliant Notice to Keeper was served on the lease firm in time, I contend there is no 'keeper liability' applying at all and I am not liable.

{i.e. get rid of the bit talking about the driver that you've said you 'can't identify'}!


and this bit, expand as shown:

As keeper, I require Parking Eye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code, by producing the dated and unredacted landowner contract and user manual. A witness statement will not suffice as it would contain no evidence from the contract wording itself nor prove that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner.




HTH

hoohoo

Change "I was the registered keeper" to "I was the keeper"

Change 1 to:

The notice to keeper was not delivered to me in the required timescales for schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act to apply. The parking event was 26th September but the charge notice was dated 5 Dec. I was not the driver and therefore am not liable.

Also, complain to the DVLA and the BPA as implying PoFA 2012 applies when it does not is a sanctionable offence and should get PE banned.

aos@britishparking.co.uk
foi@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Dear BPA/DVLA,
I wish to complain about ParkingEye. Please see the enclosed notice to keeper. As you can see this implies that keeper liability exists. However, the parking event happened on 26th September but the charge notice was dated 5 Dec, which is after the required 14 day timescale. I understand it is a sanctionable offence to imply keeper liability applies when it does not.

ampersand

SARF -
You might find this enjoyable and helpful, yesterday and today's -
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=5

EVERYONE, USE PARKING PRANKSTER'S NEW POPLA CODE CHECK.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/popla-code-checker.html

SARF

Thanks guys. How about this...


Dear POPLA,
I was the usual 'keeper' of vehicle reg xxxxxxxx as defined in POFA 2012 but cannot be sure who the driver was on this occasion. From the limited information given, it is my honest belief that I was not the driver. Therefore I wish to point out that I am appealing as 'keeper' only.
. I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds

1)The notice to keeper was not delivered to me in the required timescales for schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act to apply. The parking event was 26th September but the charge notice was dated 5 Dec. I was not the driver and therefore am not liable.

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. As keeper, I require Parking Eye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code, by producing the dated and unredacted landowner contract and user manual. A witness statement will not suffice as it would contain no evidence from the contract wording itself nor prove that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner.
I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,
The Keeper

ampersand

That's odd, just posted sarf, but it's disappeared into the ether.
Wait a few mins and I#ll re-do it.

ampersand

SARF wrote: »

Thanks guys. How about this...


Dear POPLA,
I [STRIKE]was[/STRIKE]am the usual 'keeper' of vehicle reg xxxxxxxx as defined in POFA 2012[STRIKE] but cannot be sure who the driver was on this occasion. From the limited information given, it is my honest belief that I was not the driver.[/STRIKE]do experts think this is necessary? Therefore [STRIKE]I wish to point out that[/STRIKE][in or out?] I am appealing as Registered Keeper only.
. I [STRIKE]wish to[/STRIKE] appeal against this 'invoice' on the following grounds

1)The notice to the Registered Keeper was not delivered to me in the required timescale[STRIKE]s [/STRIKE]for schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act to apply.capitalise all legal statutes, terms etc The parking event was 26 September 2013 but the charge notice was dated 5 December 2013. I was not the driver and therefore am not liable.COLOR="red"be consistent in styling dates][/COLOR]

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 ParkingEye 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 incomplete sentence

3) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'. The £85 charge asked for, purports to monetise a cost to the landowner who, in fact,[you may want this for emphasis-you decide] would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the car park is free to use.
In the appeal ParkingEye did not address this issue, and has not stated how or why[STRIKE] they[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]feel justify[suggestion][/STRIKE]an an £85 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs ParkingEye 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 [STRIKE]driver[/STRIKE] Registered Keeper does not believe that ParkingEye has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give ParkingEye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking E[capital]ye'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 chargeGood
The [STRIKE]driver[/STRIKE] 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 (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to ParkingEye. As keeper, I require ParkingEye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code, by producing the dated and unredacted landowner contract and user manual. A witness statement will not suffice as it would contain no evidence from the contract wording itself, Nor would it[STRIKE]nor[/STRIKE] prove that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, nor is even an employee of the landowner.Good
I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye [STRIKE]to cancel[/STRIKE] that they should cancel[STRIKE]the PCN[/STRIKE]this unenforceable 'invoice'forthwith.

Yours faithfully,
Registered Keeper

##########
I think you're nearly there SARF.
Let's just wait until one of the experts casts an eye over it.

I've pasted 'ParkingEye' throughout; it's their peculiar elision, but shows you, at least, note and use the courtesies of style.