ParkingEye fake PCN in private car park

Mersenne

Hi all,

I've just registered to try and get to grips with the whole fake PCN situation, and what I can do about it.

I received a NTK from ParkingEye through the post for not paying a parking tariff - it was a genuine mistake as I thought it was "after hours" but I got it wrong. As a result I have the usual £60/£100 demand.

First thing: the incident occurred on the 4th, the NTK says it was issued on the 6th, yet I only received it on the 15th - seems pretty dodgy, although still within the time limit. I find it hard to believe that a letter posted on the 6th arrived 9 days later, but I suppose there is not a lot I can do about that as no proof of when I received it.

Secondly, the parking situation: it is a private car park so I have no recourse to hassling any attached retailers, not sure if ParkingEye own the land or not (probably not?). I have a picture of a sign taken by somebody else and it is regrettably clear (my initial misreading of it notwithstanding!). However I will be going to take another look myself to be sure. My case seems a bit weak - I would gladly pay the parking charge but not £100!

I have checked the NTK as best I can against the POFA but it seems to be compliant. The only thing that caught my eye was paragraph 9(2)(c):

describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

The NTK does not mention specifically why they issued the parking charge, just that "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted . . .". Don't think that really holds any water though.

So I will probably appeal, as this seems to be the standard route. I am a bit confused as to when the GPEOL argument can be applied. It sounds like it depends on whether there is a contract or not? The sign wording was "Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of £100", and the NTK talks about terms and conditions . . . not sure what this means in terms of a contract.

Well this post was longer than I thought it would be . . . any help would be greatly appreciated!

Mersenne

Coupon-mad

Mersenne wrote: »

The NTK does not mention specifically why they issued the parking charge, just that "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted . . .". Don't think that really holds any water though.

So I will probably appeal, as this seems to be the standard route. I am a bit confused as to when the GPEOL argument can be applied. It sounds like it depends on whether there is a contract or not? The sign wording was "Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of £100", and the NTK talks about terms and conditions . . . not sure what this means in terms of a contract.

Welcome to MSE!

Re the bit in bold, we say yes it does hold water:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64380701#Comment_64380701

But you will more than likely win at POPLA on other points, the usual 'no GPEOL' that you have read about or the lack of landowner contract/authority.

PE will not own this car park (they don't own them) and you can use 'no GPEOL' (fully written of course) at this early stage in a simple online appeal, done in minutes tomorrow. Appeal only as keeper and bung in another appeal point as well as the 'no loss' one - could be the signage was not seen by the driver as it is placed too high.

That would do at this stage.

Big_Bad_Dad

Mersenne wrote: »

My case seems a bit weak - I would gladly pay the parking charge but not £100!

Don't say that! You don't owe one penny to Parking Eye. Their "discount" is one more nail in their coffin over the issue which is that their demand does not reflect losses suffered by the landowner. If you try to discuss losses with them, they will sell you a pitiful account of their activities in managing the car parks such as camera installation and signage erection: things that do not pertain to the event.

Challenge the ticket, tell them you disbelieve that there is any loss to the client. Expect their routine reply complete with a POPLA authorisation code; repeat the challenge details to POPLA and it should be cancelled.

Redx

forget about "what happened" and "what you think" , just issue a soft appeal for a popla code and beat them at popla on legalities, you have no idea if there is a valid contract to issue tickets, approved signage or whatever, and the charge is not justified, so is invalid

read that NEWBIES thread , and also read this too https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835943

your typical "soft appeal" by stroma is below

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 you company is denied on the following:

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

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 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 supply a popla code to appeal to them.

Faithfully

Mersenne

Thanks for the replies, seems like my situation is basically the same as everybody else's! Here is what I will send off for my soft appeal, sounds like the actual wording for this bit is fairly irrelevant but does it look OK?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the registered keeper of xxx and as such I received your parking charge notice with reference number xxx. I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1) The charge resulting from a alleged breach of contract must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The charge of £100 is excessive and clearly a penalty, so is not valid.
2) The parking charge notice was not in compliance with paragragh 9(2)(c) of the POFA 2012 act as it does not specify the circumstances in which the parking charge arose.
3) ParkingEye do not have the authority to issue invoices at the site.
4) The signage at the site was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, being at a high level and having exceptionally small "small print".

If you choose to reject this appeal, I request that you supply a POPLA code within 35 days so that I can take up the above points with them. As you know, POPLA will uphold my appeal on the grounds of point number 1 at the very least. I thereby request that you cancel the parking charge as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully etc

Coupon-mad

That is fine - you can submit it online, takes 10 mins, and PE might even cancel unless they are stupid...oh, wait...!

Mersenne

Thanks for the help so far everybody! The expected rejection came through with a POPLA code (plus pages of legal rubbish), so here is my first attempt at setting out the points I will make to them. I'd be grateful for any corrections/comments. Something I thought of mentioning is the large amount of POPLA appeals that have been upheld on point 1, in the hope that it might nudge the assessor towards the correct answer! Do you think I should give photos of the signs if I specifically mention them?

1. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The charge of £100 is in no way a genuine pre-estimate of loss, being significantly larger than any tariff, and is clearly a penalty. In their rejection of the initial appeal, ParkingEye address this point only briefly, asserting that the £100 sum arises from a genuine calculation. The elements of this calculation stated in the rejection letter are all general operational costs such as erection of signage, monitoring and maintenance of the ANPR system, employment of staff and so on. All of these costs would have been incurred regardless of any alleged breach of their terms and conditions, and as such cannot be considered as part of an estimate of loss. In order to justify any claim of this sort, ParkingEye must submit a full and clear breakdown of the costs incurred specifically by the car being parked at the location.
In addition, just a few paragraphs further down in the rejection letter it is claimed that the costs to ParkingEye are £53, directly contradicting the idea that the £100 stated on the signage is a genuine estimate of their losses.
2. The parking charge notice was not in compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012.
The notice does not specify the circumstances in which the parking charge arose, in contravention to paragraph 9(2)(c) of the POFA 2012 Act. It only mentions that the driver either did not purchase the appropriate ticket or that the driver overstayed – as such it would appear that ParkingEye do not even know why they issued the notice. It also prevents any appeal based on the details of the perceived breach of contract.
3. The signage at the site was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.
- The sign closest to the parked car was at a high level and had very small "small print". Other signs were at a similar level and in one case was obscured by foliage.
- Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states that if ANPR technology is in use, the “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.” On the first point, while the signs have a small ANPR logo, ANPR is not a common acronym that the average driver would recognise and they would therefore not be aware that the technology is in use. On the second, no attempt is made to inform the driver what the data captured is for.
4. ParkingEye have not demonstrated authority to issue parking charge notices at the site.
ParkingEye do not own the land in question, so in order to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice they should provide the written contract with the landowner that allows them to operate at the site and issue and pursue parking charge notices.

Redx

should be more like this one https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 unless you find a specific one relating to the same retail park or car park and retailer etc

so formatted better, and bullet pointed too

best to use notepad to formulate your appeal, stops any formatting issues when posted on here too , but you can use word as long as you copy and paste into notepad, then use the notepad version on here

hoohoo

In addition, just a few paragraphs further down in the rejection letter it is claimed that the costs to ParkingEye are £53, directly contradicting the idea that the £100 stated on the signage is a genuine estimate of their losses.

Oh dear, seems like ParkingEye failed to read the [STRIKE]training manual[/STRIKE] test case, which the lead adjudicator wrote especially for them.

Just in case they change their mind, add;

ParkingEye made over 600,000 keeper requests to the DVLA in their 2011/12 financial year and their accounts show the total cost of running the entire business to be £9.4 million. This limits the average cost per ticket to a maximum of £9.4m/600,000, or approximately £16. As not every cost of running the business is attributable to processing tickets, the average cost must be even less. ParkingEye's claim that the average cost per ticket is £53 is therefore provably false.

As £16 is much less than £100 they cannot possibly justify their charge is a true pre-estimate of loss.

Include the evidence from the prankster site
http://parking-prankster.com/exhibits.html
exhibits ex034 and ex035