ParkingEye PCN at Portishead Quays Marina

mrsmoneybags_3

Hi, I have been sent a PCN for not buying a ticket for the above car park. I did park in the designated area monittored by PE, which is in the middle of a housing estate close to the marina where there is ongoing construction of further housing. Basically I was not aware that it was a car park. It is uncommon in this area to find a car park on a housing estate that is a pay & display. Signage was unclear on entrance to the area. I stayed 40 mins for which the charge should be £1.00. I have received a PCN for £100 reduced if I pay promptly. I appealed to PE but this was rejected & I was sent a POPLA appeals form. I am now in the process of appealing, however do I stand a chance?
My case is that I did not realize it was a car park, and that the fee is punitive.
Can someone please advise me, as I feel I may be having to pay it.
I've looked through all the threads & I'm not sure as I did not buy a ticket if i have grounds to appeal.

Any suggestions gratefully received.

Redx

of course you will win at popla, read this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822 and then post up your redacted draft popla appeal for checking and criticism

you will win one of of 3 appeal points

not a gpeol , no contract or bad signage

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

mrsmoneybags wrote: »

Hi, I have been sent a PCN for not buying a ticket for the above car park. I did park in the area which is in the middle of a housing estate close to the marina where there is ongoing construction of further housing. Basically I was not aware that it was a car park. It is uncommon in this area to find a car park on a housing estate let alone a pay & display. Signage was unclear on entrance to the area. I stayed 40 mins for which the charge should be £1.00. I have received a PCN for £100 reduced if I pay promptly. I appealed to PE but this was rejected & I was sent a POPLA appeals form. I am now in the process of appealing, however do I stand a chance? My case is that I did not realise it was a car park, and that the fee is punitive. Can someone please help me with this case as I feel I may be having to pay it.
I have written to the mananger of the Marina & he says that although he sympathies with me he cannot help. I suggested some other solution to ParkingEye, he said that they had to do something because construction workers & trades people were using all the parking spaces leaving none for there customers.
Any suggestions gratefully received.

This is easy to deal with using the standard responses described in the newbies thread at the top of the forum. It is clearly an unfair charge but do not assume saying so will magically make it go away, you need to follow a process.

Coupon-mad

I appealed to PE but this was rejected & I was sent a POPLA appeals form. I am now in the process of appealing, however do I stand a chance?

Yes 100% of the time - with the right words!

It would have been quicker for you to have clicked on 'How to win at POPLA' in the ''NEWBIES please for the love of God please read these FAQs first'' sticky thread, than to have written the above post! 'Sticky' info threads on any forum are staring you in the face at the top when you arrive on page one...I can't word the title any clearer.

My case is that I did not realize it was a car park, and that the fee is punitive.

No that's really not your case for POPLA.

Can someone please advise me, as I feel I may be having to pay it.

Don't be daft. We beat PE every time - you just didn't read the sticky thread yet.

4consumerrights

Depending on the location here, this may fall out of the remit of POFA and relevant land for keeper liability. This is quite a big development at Portishead Marina Quays.

If the OP would care to pm me with the location, this can be explored further.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I would take up 4cr's help

mrsmoneybags_3

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes 100% of the time - with the right words!

It would have been quicker for you to have clicked on 'How to win at POPLA' in the ''NEWBIES please for the love of God please read these FAQs first'' sticky thread, than to have written the above post! 'Sticky' info threads on any forum are staring you in the face at the top when you arrive on page one...I can't word the title any clearer.

No that's really not your case for POPLA.

Don't be daft. We beat PE every time - you just didn't read the sticky thread yet.

Thanks so much for your reply Coupon=mad. I did read through the Newbies section, Sticky, Pranky et al, but felt totally overwhelmed so thought I'd get a bit of moral support. It's helped ! Cheers.
Will compile a appeal for POPLA today & post on here before I email.
Many thanks
Msmoneybags

mrsmoneybags_3

IanMSpencer wrote: »

This is easy to deal with using the standard responses described in the newbies thread at the top of the forum. It is clearly an unfair charge but do not assume saying so will magically make it go away, you need to follow a process.

Thanks for your support Ian, gratefully appricaited. Composing email to POPLA today & willpost here before I submit for everyone's opinion.
Cheers
mrsmoneybags (not!)

mrsmoneybags_3

Hi Folks,

Here's my draft doc to popla re; parkingeye pcn

Put forward points which I feel are relevant & that I will hopefully win on.
Not sure about ownership but worth a try?





POPLA Verification Code: xxx
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Car Park:
Alleged Contravention Date and Time:
Date of Notice:
Parking Charge Amount: £100

Dear POPLA Assessor,

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above, I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.


1. Inadequate signage/ No contract between driver
2. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's



1. Inadequate signage -The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B.

Following the receipt of the charge, I as the registered owner have personally visited the site in question, and the signage at this car park especially at the entrance is inadequate & misleading. The signage advertises/announces the management companies banner, below in smaller writing, to small to read whilst driving especially in adverse conditions as on the day in question, are the other facilities including car parking. Which does not state that it is pay & display car park or managed. These reasons make it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signage upon entering, especially in adverse weather conditions, as when the in question vehicle was parked. (Please see attached photographic images)

Under Appendix B 18.2 Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states: Entrance Signs

Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a
parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore,
as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about
the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have
a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the
parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car
park is managed and that there are terms and conditions
they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some
minimum general principles and be in a standard format.
The size of the sign must take into account the expected
speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is
recommended that you follow Department for Transport
guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an
entrance sign and more information about their use.

2. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss - The Amount of (Amount) demanded by ParkingEye is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. As this car park is primarily for the use of Quay Marina customers, (there is free unlimited use for berth holders), and with 250 berthing spaces available this is a primarily a "free car park" therefore there can be minimal losses incurred from onsite parking charges. I request ParkingEye to provide a full breakdown of how these costs are calculated, all these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach and the pre-estimate of loss must add up to the amount demanded of £100.

As in previous cases the parking company may have included day to day running costs of the business (for example Wages, Uniforms, Signage erection, Installation of ANPR cameras, Office Costs, Maintenance Costs) these would of occurred had there been a breach or not and therefore may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.

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. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss following from the parking event.

It would therefore follow that this charge is Punitive and has an element of profit included that are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies.


3. Flawed contract with landowner/Authority to issue PCN's - ParkingEye do not own this car park and are merely agents of the management company Quay Marinas, landowner or legal occupier. In their notice and rejection letters ParkingEye have provided me with no evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put ParkingEye to strict proof to POPLA that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand ParkingEye produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the ParkingEye.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013 District Judge Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name.

The BPA code of practice contains the following:

7 Written authorisation of the landowner

7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges , through the courts if necessary.


This concludes my appeal, I respectfully request that my appeal be upheld and the charge be dismissed if ParkingEye Ltd. fail to address and provide the necessary evidence as requested in the points highlighted above.


Yours Faithfully,

Stroma

Can you please remove all details that identify you, please read my signature below, I will read through your appeal now

Stroma

You have created a new thread for this, please don't do that, I will ask a forum guide to merge these