ParkingEye LBCCC - Urgent help required!

Winehouse

I have just received a generic LBCCC letter from PE.

Please can anybody tell me what to do next? I'm tempted to just pay the fee they are asking for to eliminate the stress out of my life.

Redx

check the LBCCC sticky thread by daisy at the top of this forum

also check the 2 PE court guides by parking prankster too

the m lewis video is a few years old and out of date for england and wales now

this forum tells you all you need to know, especially this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

Winehouse

Thanks I have looked at those threads however there seems to be no advice on what to do after the 14 days have passed, unless I have missed it?

SevenTowers

Winehouse wrote: »

Thanks I have looked at those threads however there seems to be no advice on what to do after the 14 days have passed, unless I have missed it?

Respond to them anyway, you can add an explanation of why you didn't receive their letter.

Parking Eye ignore deadlines, even official court deadlines all the time.

Winehouse

I have composed an acknowledgement letter is it safe to post it here for somebody to check?

SevenTowers

Winehouse wrote: »

I have composed an acknowledgement letter is it safe to post it here for somebody to check?

Yes, you can post it here, Parking Eye are going to see it soon enough anyway.

LazyDaisy (Retired Solicitor) is the board expert on LBCCCs, she's not about too much at present, but several of the other members will be able to give u feedback.

Coupon-mad

Winehouse wrote: »

Thanks I have looked at those threads however there seems to be no advice on what to do after the 14 days have passed, unless I have missed it?

I will send you a pm to reply to the one you sent me. Please edit most of your first post as there's still too much info in it!

SevenTowers

Winehouse,
You're getting advice from some of the best people, follow CM's instructions about removing information from your posts, Parking Eye will read this thread and have been known to produce entire threads in court.

This will probably be sorted out off the forum, but do please come back and update this thread to tell us how you get on.

Winehouse

Done, and thank you all so much. I will read and respond to CM and let you know what happens.

Coupon-mad

Easy when you know how!

Winehouse

Hi all, after fantastic help and guidance from Coupon-mad I am at the POPLA stage of appeal and wanted to see if this was a suitable appeal to submit?

---

I was the driver of vehicle reg xxxx xxx and I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge.

I have researched the matter, taken legal advice and would like to point out the following as my appeal against said charge:

1) Unclear and misleading signage.

I entered the car park at xx:xx on DAY MONTH 2013. The car parking notices are poorly lit and are above eye level. I noted on the tariff above the ticket machine that chargeable hours were Monday to Friday 8am - 6pm, leading me to believe that I was parked outside of these hours. I left the car park at xx:xx.

I contend that the signs and any core parking terms the operator are relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read or understand.

I require that the operator provides documentary evidence and signage map/photos on this point, lighting at night, colours used in cases of driver colour blindness and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.

2) Proprietary Interest

I do 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. I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty. And in my case this was a free car park with no payment due at that time.

3) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £0.00 from any vehicles parked as the signage states that charges apply Monday-Friday 8am - 6pm. In the appeal, Parking Eye did not address this issue and has not stated why they feel a £100 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 £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, admin, operating costs, 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.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

ParkingEye and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is 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 damage".

No doubt ParkingEye will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''

My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.