parking eye charge notice

Guys_Dad

I prefer the 4 bullet point appeal which includes GPEOL and contract.

Knock one up an post it here for comments.

flopsy1973

Dear Popla

My Deatils
PCN No.
Issued.
Reg.
Todays Date

I am the registered keeper of car reg xxxx and wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds

1) The Signage does not comply with BPA requlations
specifically regarding the data policy regarding ANPR technology used in this car park. ( not sure of this i could not see any mention of ANPR technology being used on sign unless it is on the small print ? also signage is placed high around 2.5 metres ? do i mention this ?)

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) I have receipts to prove i was using this retail park on the day in question which parking eye asked me to submit to them. these were then still disregarded by parking eye as they did not meet the discretionary criteria set out by the landowner in this case ( how can i add to this as it seems this discretionary criteria is a bit baffling either you are spending money there or not ?)

it feels a bit short should i expand on these or include other points ?
Also the reason i was in this car park i had taken my mum for some food and shopping and was not feeling too well that day so things took longer after being to the hospital as she has cancer , should i include this in the appeal ?

any thoughts or help would be great






Thanks all

Guys_Dad

It's on its way but you need to add a final para saying cancel or send me a POPLA code.

Also you have reverted to "I" rather than "the driver" at point 4 and you need to crib a better signage appeal point.

Stroma

It's far to long IMO , and you admit to being the driver in number 4, this is perfectly good appeal

Dear UKPC,

As the registered keeper of (reg) I'm in receipt of your parking invoice xxxxxx dated xxxxxx. I wish to invoke your appeals process as is my right under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, all liability to you company is denied on the following:

1) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner
2) Your signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass
4) The driver was a genuine shopper, copies of receipts attached

These points and others will be raised with Popla should you not accept this appeal, and you will be expected to provide a full breakdown of your alleged loss, and your full unredacted contract with the landowner.

If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail.

Please issue your cancellation within 35 days of this letter or a popla verification code. I have nothing further to add.

Faithfully

Stroma

Oops it's a popla appeal, disregard the above apart from point 4

4consumerrights

@Guysdad - this is meant to the POPLA appeal.

It's your appeal OP - but IMHO it needs a LOT more work.

1) Non compliant signgage - no contract with driver made
2) The ANPR accuracy is a separate issue althouth the logo for ANPR should be more clearly detailed on entry signs -
3)Proprietary Interest - contract with landowner - wording needs improving to include:

"Parking Eye have the requisite legal standing to pursue parking charges through the courts, as a creditor, in their own name"

GPEOL wording can be tweaked a bit.

Please do leave in the bit that you were a genuine customer and were informed that you did not meet the discretionary criteria - state that this is discrimination as there are several shops there and you were a genuine customer in several outlets. This therefore falls within their car parking management scheme that only genuine customers use the car parks.

Do a little more research and post up another attempt.

Click on Guys dads username and view threads he started - one is called POPLA appeal core points!

Coupon-mad

flopsy1973 wrote: »

4) I have receipts to prove i was using this retail park on the day in question which parking eye asked me to submit to them. these were then still disregarded by parking eye as they did not meet the discretionary criteria set out by the landowner in this case ( how can i add to this as it seems this discretionary criteria is a bit baffling either you are spending money there or not ?)

You could use these sort of words - it's long but brings it around to contract law which is what POPLA look for:

4) PARKING EYE'S CONTRACT ALLOWS FOR 'GENUINE CUSTOMER EXEMPTION' BUT AS A HIDDEN TERM. BREACH OF UTCCR 1999 & CPUTRs 2008
I have discovered that ParkingEye have a secret agreement with their client called a 'genuine customer exemption' which I am now told (too late) the driver/passenger could have claimed at the outset, apparently if they had spent more than an undisclosed sum. But this Operator failed to make that contract term or 'discretionary criteria' known to customers even though it appears to be a core term of their operation here at this car park.

Parking Eye are required to show POPLA their full contract and user manual/agreement to show POPLA the wording of this 'genuine customer exemption' term. The Operator must explain why this term & sum is not mentioned anywhere in the signage nor explained clearly and transparently in the Notice to Keeper, or indeed anywhere, despite ample opportunity. This is clearly a crucial core term to share with retail park customers at an early stage when the driver/passengers would know they needed to meet the undisclosed minimum spend and then show a receipt to claim their exemption as a shopper. This is a fundamental term and is a key feature which has directly led to this charge being applied - and yet neither I nor the driver knew about it.

Parking Eye are taking unconscionable advantage of myself by failing to inform me or the driver about the exemption we could have claimed. Parking Eye must show POPLA how their secret 'exemption clause' meets the 'test of fairness' in contract law (see below). The Operator is required to explain what justification they think exists to fail to share this term with the party they hold liable, the very party upon whom the contract is foisted and the person who is facing the detriment of a charge.

This is a 'wholly unreasonable' contract term and a 'misleading omission' which is in clear breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008:

CPUTR 2008 PART 2 PROHIBITIONS*
Misleading omissions
6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(b)the commercial practice hides material information,
and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

“material information” means— the information which the average consumer needs, according to the context, to take an informed transactional decision.

*CPUTRs prohibitions are expressly banned contract terms in the regulations - there is no justification if the 'prohibited' level of unfair terms is found to apply.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/u...erms/oft311.pdf
Office of Fair Trading Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
'Test of fairness'
A term is unfair if: Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers. Regulation 5(1).
Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.

'Good faith' means that {companies} must deal fairly and openly with consumers. Standard terms may be drafted to protect commercial needs but must also take account of the interests and rights of consumers by going no further than is necessary to protect those legitimate commercial interests.

9.2 It is not 'hidden terms' themselves that are indicated to be unfair, but any term which binds the consumer to accept or comply with them – or, in legal jargon, 'incorporates' them 'by reference'. However, terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.
9.3 We also object to terms which require consumers to accept that they are bound by the terms of other linked contracts...unless they are given an appropriate chance to read them.
9.4 This is not to say that every detail of information about an agreement must be included in a single contract document...The overriding requirement is that consumers are effectively alerted – before committing themselves – to all contractual provisions that could significantly affect their legitimate interests.
18.7.4 Suspicion of unfairness falls on any term giving to the supplier, or his agent, excessive power to decide whether the consumer ought to be subject to a penalty, obliged to make reparation of any kind, or deprived of any benefits under the contract.
18.8.1 There is a clear risk of unfairness where terms put consumers at risk of incurring contractual penalties that are more severe than is necessary to protect the real interest of the supplier. This form of unfairness most obviously arises where a term provides for an excessive penalty...
18.8.2 Where contract terms impose requirements that are not required at all by any legitimate interest of the supplier, or which go beyond anything needed to protect his legitimate interests, the source of unfairness is not the level of the penalty. Any penalty entailed by a wholly unreasonable term must be considered potentially disproportionate. Since breach of a contract term always involves some risk of a sanction being applied to the consumer, the term itself is the source of unfairness, and fairness can only be achieved by removing or amending it.
18.8.3 The OFT therefore objects, on the grounds of disproportionate penal effect, to terms which impose obligations or restrictions that are or can be wholly unreasonable, or which give the supplier the power to make stipulations of that nature. The objection applies regardless of the level of penalty stipulated...

*******************************


- And in point #3 you have written 'The driver doesn't believe' which makes no sense? Should be 'I do not believe' because you've said you were the keeper (driver not identified).

- and re this point:

1) The Signage does not comply with BPA requlations
specifically regarding the data policy regarding ANPR technology used in this car park. ( not sure of this i could not see any mention of ANPR technology being used on sign unless it is on the small print ? also signage is placed high around 2.5 metres ? do i mention this ?)

All of that is covered in all recent POPLA appeals on the forum about any firm which uses cameras onsite - here's one I wrote last night re CEL:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64803331#Comment_64803331

The 'ANPR non compliance' is a separate point from the 'signage is pants and can't be seen/read by drivers so no contract was formed' point.

See what you end up with when you throw all this together now. You can use any relevant chunks from that linked example of course, feel free, but change the PPC to read 'ParkingEye of course! And do include the above #4 even though I know it's far from a bullet point!

flopsy1973

thanks for the replies
coupon mad does all that you quoted need to go into the appeal ?
also is there a better template with someone with similar situation to me i can use and adapt ?

many thanks

Coupon-mad

Adapt the CEL one maybe that I linked? And yes, put all of that in!

4consumerrights

Shouldn't be too difficult to put ALL that in which coupon typed out for you - simple copy and paste job.