We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ParkingEye 10 minutes overstay Ormskirk Two Saints retail Park
Options
lordazathoth
Posts: 18 Forumite
Hello
I have received a notice from ParkingEye for having gone over the free hour limit by 10 minutes in Two Saint retail park car park.
I was then working in a nearby 2 store which is not part of the retail Park. There is no clear visible signage that the time starts on entering the car park, they are too high to read from the car seat.
I have seen similar posts from people using this car park If anyone has picture of the signage it would be highly appreciated.
I understand I need to first appeal to ParkingEYe to get a POPLA code.
Is it ok to use this for ParkingEye and wahat follows for the 2nd appeal
Dear {company name of this member of ''PPC World''},
PCN number xxxxxxx
As the registered keeper, I have received your parking invoice which of course, I decline your invitation to pay. I wish to invoke your appeals process, since all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:
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 and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass
Please issue your standard cancellation letter or a specific, detailed rejection letter. If you choose to send the latter, it must state:
- the legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) as your signage was not seen/accepted by the driver and your NTK failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.
- if alleging breach of contract, with your rejection letter I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular 'loss' arose. Please also explain how/why you charge a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious and how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
- if alleging trespass please enclose evidence of the perpetrator and proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum.
- if alleging 'contractual fee' I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice now that I have requested it, will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).
Take formal note:
(a) Your unsupported, unsolicited invoice and any further letters if you persist, will constitute harassment. If you continue, your contact and that of any agent will be deemed a 'serious and persistent unwarranted threat' as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) and I reserve the right to take the matter further. You have been informed that I consider this to be harassment so any decision to send further letters rather than cancel the invoice will reinforce the evidence of your persistent unwarranted threat and you may be required to justify your actions in court.
(b) Any obfuscation on your part, such as pretending I have to name the driver, alleging I am too late or unable to appeal as keeper or requiring more evidence when clearly I have already set out my full challenge for this stage, will be reported to the DVLA and to your respective ATA, as a sanctionable breach of your Code of Practice.
(c) If you reject my challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my costs from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and legal fees as well as liquidated damages for distress arising from harassment.
By continuing to pursue me you hereby accept liability to pay my costs when I prevail and you acknowledge and imply full understanding of the above.
Yours,
{the registered keeper's name} NO NEED TO USE A REAL SIGNATURE
2nd appeal
[FONT="]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/FONT]
[FONT="]Re: ParkingEye PCN, verification code xxxxxxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT="]I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. Notwithstanding that the drivers was a genuine customer of Tw Saints Retail Park, Ormskirk, I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.[/FONT]
[FONT="]A summary of the main points raised throughout this appeal are listed below, for your convenience:[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please see below for details regarding the raised points:[/FONT]
[FONT="]1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
[FONT="]There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 10 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I request that should this invoice stand, ParkingEye be required to provide a quantitative breakdown of how the alleged sum is arrived at.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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".[/FONT]
[FONT="]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.''[/FONT]
[FONT="]My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.[/FONT]
[FONT="]2) No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers.[/FONT]
[FONT="]ParkingEye do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against ParkingEye which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing, nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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 parallel between the case where judgment has been passed, and my own situation, are clearly analogous.[/FONT]
[FONT="]3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require ParkingEye to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If ParkingEye produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that ParkingEye witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest ParkingEye does not bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance, nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.[/FONT]
[FONT="]ParkingEye has alleged a contract was formed, (which is denied). In view of the above, it is my contention that Parking Eye's contract is the same as these cases above. Parking Eye must supply the un-redacted contract with the landowner to counter these statements. The contract must prove that they do indeed have a proprietary interest in the land; the requisite legal standing to pursue parking charges through the courts in their own name and do not operate as an agent.[/FONT]
[FONT="]4) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice[/FONT][FONT="] so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car. Additionally and confusingly, the designated areas utilised the universal signage of disabled blue badge holders, which is (in my experience) without exception used to denote areas reserved for free parking, to patients/individuals who have a blue badge.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3[/FONT]
[FONT="]This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.[/FONT]
[FONT="]In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.[/FONT]
[FONT="]So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yours faithfully,[/FONT]
[FONT="]THE REGISTERED KEEPER
Please help me.
Thanks
[/FONT]
I have received a notice from ParkingEye for having gone over the free hour limit by 10 minutes in Two Saint retail park car park.
I was then working in a nearby 2 store which is not part of the retail Park. There is no clear visible signage that the time starts on entering the car park, they are too high to read from the car seat.
I have seen similar posts from people using this car park If anyone has picture of the signage it would be highly appreciated.
I understand I need to first appeal to ParkingEYe to get a POPLA code.
Is it ok to use this for ParkingEye and wahat follows for the 2nd appeal
Dear {company name of this member of ''PPC World''},
PCN number xxxxxxx
As the registered keeper, I have received your parking invoice which of course, I decline your invitation to pay. I wish to invoke your appeals process, since all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:
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 and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract
3) You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass
Please issue your standard cancellation letter or a specific, detailed rejection letter. If you choose to send the latter, it must state:
- the legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) as your signage was not seen/accepted by the driver and your NTK failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.
- if alleging breach of contract, with your rejection letter I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular 'loss' arose. Please also explain how/why you charge a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious and how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
- if alleging trespass please enclose evidence of the perpetrator and proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum.
- if alleging 'contractual fee' I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice now that I have requested it, will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).
Take formal note:
(a) Your unsupported, unsolicited invoice and any further letters if you persist, will constitute harassment. If you continue, your contact and that of any agent will be deemed a 'serious and persistent unwarranted threat' as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) and I reserve the right to take the matter further. You have been informed that I consider this to be harassment so any decision to send further letters rather than cancel the invoice will reinforce the evidence of your persistent unwarranted threat and you may be required to justify your actions in court.
(b) Any obfuscation on your part, such as pretending I have to name the driver, alleging I am too late or unable to appeal as keeper or requiring more evidence when clearly I have already set out my full challenge for this stage, will be reported to the DVLA and to your respective ATA, as a sanctionable breach of your Code of Practice.
(c) If you reject my challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my costs from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and legal fees as well as liquidated damages for distress arising from harassment.
By continuing to pursue me you hereby accept liability to pay my costs when I prevail and you acknowledge and imply full understanding of the above.
Yours,
{the registered keeper's name} NO NEED TO USE A REAL SIGNATURE
2nd appeal
[FONT="]Dear POPLA Assessor,[/FONT]
[FONT="]Re: ParkingEye PCN, verification code xxxxxxxxxx[/FONT]
[FONT="]I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. Notwithstanding that the drivers was a genuine customer of Tw Saints Retail Park, Ormskirk, I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge.[/FONT]
[FONT="]A summary of the main points raised throughout this appeal are listed below, for your convenience:[/FONT]
- [FONT="]No genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
- [FONT="]No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement[/FONT]
- [FONT="]The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver[/FONT]
- [FONT="]ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3[/FONT]
[FONT="]Please see below for details regarding the raised points:[/FONT]
[FONT="]1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
[FONT="]There was no damage nor obstruction caused, so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 10 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I request that should this invoice stand, ParkingEye be required to provide a quantitative breakdown of how the alleged sum is arrived at.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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".[/FONT]
[FONT="]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.''[/FONT]
[FONT="]My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.[/FONT]
[FONT="]2) No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers.[/FONT]
[FONT="]ParkingEye do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against ParkingEye which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing, nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.[/FONT]
[FONT="]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 parallel between the case where judgment has been passed, and my own situation, are clearly analogous.[/FONT]
[FONT="]3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require ParkingEye to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.[/FONT]
[FONT="]If ParkingEye produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that ParkingEye witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest ParkingEye does not bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance, nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.[/FONT]
[FONT="]ParkingEye has alleged a contract was formed, (which is denied). In view of the above, it is my contention that Parking Eye's contract is the same as these cases above. Parking Eye must supply the un-redacted contract with the landowner to counter these statements. The contract must prove that they do indeed have a proprietary interest in the land; the requisite legal standing to pursue parking charges through the courts in their own name and do not operate as an agent.[/FONT]
[FONT="]4) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice[/FONT][FONT="] so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car. Additionally and confusingly, the designated areas utilised the universal signage of disabled blue badge holders, which is (in my experience) without exception used to denote areas reserved for free parking, to patients/individuals who have a blue badge.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3[/FONT]
[FONT="]This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.[/FONT]
[FONT="]In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.[/FONT]
[FONT="]So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Yours faithfully,[/FONT]
[FONT="]THE REGISTERED KEEPER
Please help me.
Thanks
[/FONT]
0
Comments
-
Your intial appeal to PE seems fine but if it was me I would also add
1/ a sentence requiring that any rejection letter should also contain a valid POPLA verificatiin code in compliance with POFA regulations and that any delay in doing so will be reported to the BPA and DVLA.
Shouldn't really be necessary as they are required to do this but better to make it explicit.
2/a fourth point about ANPR (probably the 1st paragraph of point 5) in your POPLA letter would suffice) - only reason I say this is that if you are intending to raise this at POPLA it's better if it's also included in your appeal to PE.
Re: Your POPLA appeal letter - this looks pretty good too but as it will only be required once you receive your rejection from PE - it might be best to wait to finalise it until you have received your rejection letter as the letter may contain other things you want to object to.0 -
thanks I will amend the appeal to PE accordingly and wait for the code.
I will check with the forum for the POPLA appeal.
I assume I will have to use this thread, won't I.
Thanks again0 -
Yes - best to just post again on this thread then anyone responding will have the full history.
Your response from PE could take anything up to 35 days but may only be a couple of weeks. When it arrives - check your POPLA code on Parking-Cowboys POPLA checker - this will tell you when your POPLA appeal needs to be in by.
Refine your appeal letter if needed and just ask for someone to give it the once over
Good luck0 -
Sorry just a final bit of advice
If you are intending to use the PE web-site to appeal make sure you select the right box about who your are i.e. KEEPER (there are a number of drop down selections)
Also follow it up with a hard copy but take it to the post office and ask for a proof of posting certificate (this is free) don't waste money by sending recorded delivery - they have been known to refuse to sign for these anyway0 -
Actually a very good effort!0
-
thanks for your help. Nearly there but guess what ... I am only allowed a "string of 3000" so my appeal doesn't fit n the online version grrrrrr0
-
you should be able to attach it as a notepad file or possibly a word doc or a pdf to popla , but a PE appeal is nowhere near that limit, are you sure you are sending the correct appeal to them ?0
-
i think so
As the registered keeper, I have received your parking invoice which of course, I decline your invitation to pay. I wish to invoke your appeals process, since all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:
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 and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract.
3- You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.
4- ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3: This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.
Please issue your standard cancellation letter or a specific, detailed rejection letter. If you choose to send the latter, it must state:
- The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) as your signage was not seen/accepted by the driver and your NTK failed to make the basis of the charge clear. As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the nature of the allegation.
- If alleging breach of contract, with your rejection letter I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages suffered, and by whom, and when this calculation was determined and how this particular 'loss' arose. Please also explain how/why you charge a fixed sum no matter whether the alleged contravention was trivial or more serious and how that can amount to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
- If alleging trespass please enclose evidence of the perpetrator and proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum.
- if alleging 'contractual fee' I require that you now send me a VAT invoice by return and explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for the fee. Failure to provide this information and a VAT invoice now that I have requested it, will be considered evidence that this was not in fact a genuine offer to park for a fee and is merely a penalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr Recorder Gibson QC, on appeal at Luton County Court in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476) 21/2/2014).
- Should you oppose my appeal, your rejection letter should also contain a valid POPLA verification code in compliance with POFA regulations and that any delay in doing so will be reported to the BPA and DVLA.
Take formal note:
(a) Your unsupported, unsolicited invoice and any further letters if you persist, will constitute harassment. If you continue, your contact and that of any agent will be deemed a 'serious and persistent unwarranted threat' as found by Lord Justice Sedley in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 (10 February 2009) and I reserve the right to take the matter further. You have been informed that I consider this to be harassment so any decision to send further letters rather than cancel the invoice will reinforce the evidence of your persistent unwarranted threat and you may be required to justify your actions in court.
(b) Any obfuscation on your part, such as pretending I have to name the driver, alleging I am too late or unable to appeal as keeper or requiring more evidence when clearly I have already set out my full challenge for this stage, will be reported to the DVLA and to your respective ATA, as a sanctionable breach of your Code of Practice.
(c) If you reject my challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my costs from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses and legal fees as well as liquidated damages for distress arising from harassment.
[FONT="]
By continuing to pursue me you hereby accept liability to pay my costs when I prevail and you acknowledge and imply full understanding of the above.
Yours,
this the one ?[/FONT]0 -
I've recently used the ParkingEye on-line appeal.
I attached a pdf file of my appeal and a jpeg of a receipt.
I think it allows up to 5 files of various kinds - think word docs were also an option0 -
yes I will have to do that then. I am wondering how much money they make.
I bet a lot of people are scared and pay straight away0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards