Appeal to parking eye

Ladyoftheflowers

Hey guys,

I have been reading this forum recently and want to thank you all very much for your advice!

I had a parking charge from parking eye in a retail park car park recently, which I am in the initial stages of appealing. I wondered if anyone would mind having a quick look at my appeal and giving me any pointers please? This I only the first appeal to parking eye, however I read that people have had them revoked at this stage when they've sent more detailed appeals, so I thought it was worth a try!

To whom it may concern,

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds.

1) The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice (BPA) (section 18) and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the registered keeper.

The sign facing the entrance to the car park does not state any information regarding a charge or any of the terms and conditions (see attachment....). The sign on the other side of the entrance would not be visible on the angle one drives in to the car park and is obstructed by a tree (see attachment....). These signs are positioned too high and the lettering is far too small to read from a car, especially when in moving traffic entering the car park. Any alleged contract can only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. Therefore, as defined by Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the requirements of forming a contract, for example a meeting of minds; agreement; certainty of terms, were not satisfied. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility. I require the parking company to provide evidence to the contrary.

2) I have no evidence to prove that the ANPR cameras have been properly maintained to ensure that data collection is accurate; securely held and can not be tampered with, as per the British Parking Association's (BPA) Code of Practice 21.2 and 21.3.

This charge relies wholly on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting the location at specific times. The synchronisation of the camera pictures and the timer has been questioned in previous court cases (Parking eye vs Fox-Jones 8/11/13) resulting in the case being dismissed based on fundamentally flawed evidence from Parking Eye. I require you to provide contemporaneous records as to the dates and times of when the ANPR cameras at this location were maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos.

Section 21.1 of the BPA's Code of Practice also states that "signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for". There are no signs at the car park that clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not "operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner", therefore breaching the terms of the BPA.

3) Section 7 of the BPA's Code of Practice states that private parking companies must have written authorisation from the landowner to carry out all aspects of management and enforcement on the site.

I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a registered keeper of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name. Specifically, to comply with the Code of Practice, the contract needs to grant Parking Eye the right to pursue parking charges in the courts in their own name, as creditor. I require the parking company to produce a copy of the official contract with the landowner to prove that they do have such authority.

In order to impose time limits, charges and place ANPR cameras in car parks planning permission is required. I require proof that planning permission was granted for the current parking regime at this site.

4) The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimation of loss.

Section19.5 of the BPA's Code of Practice states that "if the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer".

The £100 charge asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner, as the car park is free to use. The car park had ample remaining capacity and no physical damage was caused.

I attach a letter from Parking Eye in correspondence with another case (attachment ....), that admits that your estimate of cost in each case is actually £53, including operating costs. Thus, the charge you are seeking to impose in my case has a considerable element of profit as well as operating costs incorporated. By your own admission, therefore, it can not, be a true pre-estimate of loss.

In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79, Lord Dunedin stated that a charge becomes a penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling". Given that Parking Eye charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, therefore it is a penalty.

The Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' state that ''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are, as a result, unenforceable. In order to refute this, I require production of a breakdown of how this cost is calculated. By law this cost should be as a result of the alleged breach and not operational expenditure, which would have still been incurred were no breach to have occurred.

Redx

that reads more like a popla defence , lol

here is a standard shorter appeal from stroma you may wish to adapt and use

Dear Parking Eye,

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 all liability to your 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

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 forward a popla verification code.

Faithfully

Ladyoftheflowers

Thanks! Is it counterproductive for it to read like a popla appeal?

Redx

it certainly tips your hand unless you have receipts etc proving patronage

if you had shop receipts etc you can get them to cancel, no receipts etc and its a refusal

only you know if you have that kind of proof or not, I did so had one cancelled

the shortened letter I posted is for those with no proof that would have them cancel it, as they rarely do

Coupon-mad

With PE it will make no difference because unless you can include £30+ in photocopied receipts, they won't cancel. If you can, send any old appeal and the copy receipts scanned in and appeal online. They will cancel in that case I suspect.

No receipts? Your choice of appeal then but online is free and a long appeal probably won't fit in the box. And you have saved yourself some time by drafting a winning POPLA appeal there already! Nicely done.

Ladyoftheflowers

Thanks! I have a bank statement with proof that I was in the store but no receipts, it's only for about £6! Do you reckon I could include it as an attachment on the online appeal?

Redx

no reason why not, but dont expect miracles from them

in any case just mention the driver or keeper was a customer of the store and here is a REDACTED copy of the bank statement - dont give them all your bank details like account no and sort code