Parking Eye Charge Notice re' a Warrington Car park

TennisFan

Hello,
I’ve recently received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye for non payment for a very short visit to a private car park. From reading the many useful posts on this forum (thank you to all the experts) I have a plan of action, but would appreciate any thoughts on anything I may be missing.

The car park in question is town parking rather than associated with a retail complex, I’ve been able to glean the name of the land's owner by searching the local council planning permission database!. The signage at the car park is very poor (I have pictures to prove it) and the ‘visit’ was taken up with 1) manoeuvring slowly around a very tight car park, 2) stopping for 5 minutes to take a mobile phone call, 3) consulting my map to try and identify where I was, 4) queuing to get back on the main road during rush hour when there was a continuous stream of fast traffic.

My plan is to :

• Immediately email Parking Eye with a soft appeal (wording as suggested by various forum entries ) ….. a) not a genuine pre-estimate of loss b) signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice c) no authority or permission to issue invoices at this location d) The Parking charge Notice specifies Para 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, but in fact does not comply with the act, as the letter does not specify a complete address of ‘the relevant land’ on which the car was parked (no street name, no postcode, refers to a non-existent building name). Also will state … that these points and others will be raised with Popla should they not accept this appeal, and they will be expected to provide a full breakdown of their alleged loss, and their full unredacted contract with the landowner.

• Send a letter of complaint to the land owner, saying that I am very, very upset at been threatened by Parking Eye with a £100 ‘fine’ for ‘parking’ on his land for a few minutes, when in fact I hadn’t even turned the engine off as I manoeuvred around the very tight car park, consulted a map and queued to rejoin the main road in rush hour. Also, asking him if he was aware that Parking Eye’s car park signage does not comply with the BPA Operators code of practice, as evidenced by the pictures I'll send him?

• Wait for the inevitable rejection from Parking Eye and pursue the appeal with POPLA.

Anything else I should be doing?

da_rule

Sounds good. Couple of quick questions though:
1) The notice was received through the post? (I'm assuming so as you say you really stop)
2) This was in England/Wales?

If the answer to both of these questions is 'yes' then it looks like you are doing everything correctly. Without being patronising, well done, it's nice to see someone who has actually taken the time to read the information in this forum rather than just jumping on and asking to be walked through every step.

ColliesCarer

Good plan - I'm assuming your appeal will be from the RK and is phrased in 3rd person.
Bear in mind the parking companies do monitor forums so make sure you are not divulging personal info or details that could identify you - was a bit concerned about your username

Also you might be interested in this recent case lost by P E as has relevance to your "parking" invoice
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

TennisFan

Yes the Parking Charge Notice came through the post, with an 'arrival time' picture so dark you can barely see the car!

And yes, it's in England / Wales.

Thank you for the reminder to make sure the appeal is from the registered keeper and in the 3rd party - I'll recheck my draft!

It feels spooky to think the parking companies might be reading this ! my username actually has nothing to do with my real name ... it's an old teacher of mine! so hopefully they will just be confused if they try and identify me.

Redx

SueMeredith wrote: »

Yes the Parking Charge Notice came through the post, with an 'arrival time' picture so dark you can barely see the car!

it would seem you are not au fait with how anpr works

so may I suggest you read this http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/how-parking-operators-use-anpr.html

its not cctv , its anpr and so not the same thing as a standard camera snapshot like you may take with a digital camera or phone !

good luck

Stroma

If it's only 5 minutes or so in the car park , use the fact that they haven't given an adequate grace period to leave the car park either. Also read this from prankster

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

TennisFan

Well as expected, I've quickly had a standard letter of reply from ParkingEye advising that my appeal has been unsuccessful. (Their letter contains pages of reasons why their Parking Charge amount is reasonable and how the courts have found against the Pre-estimate of Loss argument, even an FAQ, etc – all standard stuff I presume. It also includes details on appealing to POPLA ). However, they haven’t addressed any of the other specific appeal points I raised.

The land owner to whom I wrote a letter of complaint hasn’t replied yet.


I'm getting ready to pull together what I need to say in my POPLA appeal. (Reading a lot of forum produced examples at the moment!). I’d like to post it here when finished to get thoughts and suggestions, however I’m a bit nervous about doing that, as it has been said before, that this forum is open and is regularly looked at by the various Parking companies – or am I being too paranoid ?

Most of my appeal points have been quoted in other forum entries, however one aspect which I haven’t seen mentioned in the forum before, is that in the Parking charge Notice they sent me, it specifies Para 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, but in fact they do not comply with the act, as their letter does not specify a valid address for the car park - no street name, no postcode, refers to a non-existent building name (one which was knocked down to make way for the car park)….. is this worth adding as an appeal point or is it too pedantic?

I can see that appeals to POPLA seem to come in various forms … is it better to go for a short, bulleted form of appeal letter or a longer form quoting case law , what other POPLA adjudicators have said previously, etc ?

Also, ParkingEye’s letter states that they have extended the discount period for a further 14 days, but if I appeal to POPLA and the appeal is unsuccessful I will have to pay the full amount of the parking charge rather than the current discounted amount on offer…. is that a common threat?

Finally, I am a bit concerned that even though I never intended to actually park in the car park, the fact that I ended up being it for 17 minutes, whilst I sorted out where I was, then answered my mobile phone and then queued for 5 mins to get out again, could be considered ‘parking’….. I don’t want to spend a lot of time writing an appeal that is doomed to failure. [FONT=&quot]Although I do think a £60 charge is extortionate. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

all standard stuff I presume

Yes - all seven pages of it!

or am I being too paranoid ?

Yes you are - the latest behaviour from Parking Eye when they see a decent POPLA appeal is to bury their head in the sand and hope it goes away...nasty forum parking guru's{sic} like us have vendetta against them apparently!

TennisFan wrote: »

Most of my appeal points have been quoted in other forum entries, however one aspect which I haven’t seen mentioned in the forum before, is that in the Parking charge Notice they sent me, it specifies Para 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, but in fact they do not comply with the act, as their letter does not specify a valid address for the car park - no street name, no postcode, refers to a non-existent building name (one which was knocked down to make way for the car park)….. is this worth adding as an appeal point or is it too pedantic?

Sounds like a very valid point as a flawed NTK = 'no keeper liability'.

TennisFan wrote: »

I can see that appeals to POPLA seem to come in various forms … is it better to go for a short, bulleted form of appeal letter or a longer form quoting case law , what other POPLA adjudicators have said previously, etc ?

Doesn't matter as long as you have the 'no GPEOL' and 'no standing' points especially.

TennisFan wrote: »

Also, ParkingEye’s letter states that they have extended the discount period for a further 14 days, but if I appeal to POPLA and the appeal is unsuccessful I will have to pay the full amount of the parking charge rather than the current discounted amount on offer…. is that a common threat?

That's always the case. But we win 100% of POPLA appeals.

TennisFan wrote: »

Finally, I am a bit concerned that even though I never intended to actually park in the car park, the fact that I ended up being it for 17 minutes, whilst I sorted out where I was, then answered my mobile phone and then queued for 5 mins to get out again, could be considered ‘parking’….. I don’t want to spend a lot of time writing an appeal that is doomed to failure

Your appeal is destined to win, if it includes no GPEOL and no standing etc., and your point about the NTK not having the correct location.
YOU WILL NOT LOSE. PE WILL GIVE UP.

TennisFan

Thank you for the enouragement .... here's my suggested appeal to POPLA ... please critique freely !:

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

Dear POPLA Assessor,

Re: ParkingEye PCN, verification code xxxxxxxxxx

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) I believe that the ParkingEye charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2) Car park signage is unclear and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice, forming no contract with drivers
3) Parking Eye do not have the authority or permission to issue invoices at this location
4) ParkingEye's parking charge notice specifies Para 9(2) of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, but in fact does not comply with the act or BPA guidelines, hence there is no keeper liability

I expand below on these points to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who charges £8.00 for any vehicles parked.
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, 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. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 17 minute overstay as they would for 1 hour, 2 hours or indeed 24 hours overstay, 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.

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.

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.

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.


2) The car park signage is unclear and does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice, forming no contract with drivers
Isubmit that the signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice in a number of areas :


· Section A 8.3 : “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see” – ParkingEye’s signs at this car park are placed on high poles, and the typeface is small ie they are not readable at eye level for a driver in moving traffic entering the car park.
· Section A 8.2 : “Entrance signs , located at the entrance to the car park, must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions which they must be aware of.” – the entrance sign at this car park was a simple letter ‘P’ on a blue background, it did not conform to Department for Transport guidance or industry-accepted sign designs as shown in Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice..
· Section 21.1: “ You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your 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.'' - ParkingEye fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As they place signs too high and too small to see on arrival, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

I require that ParkingEye provide evidence that the signage in this car park meets BPA Code standards. I contend that no contract was formed with the driver because of the inadequacy of ParkingEyes signs.

3) Parking Eye do not have the authority or permission to issue invoices at this location
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. As registered keeper I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore ParkingEye has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking eye. I expect Parking Eye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.

4) ParkingEyes parking charge notice specifies Para 9(2) of schedule 4 of PoFA 2012, but in fact the Notice To Keeper issued does not comply with
with Para 9(2) , which says :
“The notice must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” . The address of the ‘relevant land’ contained in the notice to keeper, specifies only a non-existent building name followed by a town name, it does not specify a road name, postcode or any other means of identifying precisely where the parking land is located. Therefore the address of the parking land specified in the notice to keeper does NOT comply with Para 9(2) .

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

da_rule

Looks good. POPLA will see the first point and stop reading there.

Guys_Dad

Last point - you haven't made the most of.

You need to state that because PE have failed to comply, they are only permitted to pursue the driver and you, as keeper, are not required to name the driver, and you have not done so. They are, therefore, pursuing you as keeper and as they have failed to comply with POFA, there is no legitimacy in their demand.

It would be good if you were able to make this point 1 in your appeal and then add a sentence along the lines of "This is my main appeal point and only if POPLA are not prepared to grant my appeal on this basis, I would like the following supplementary points considered." Then add the other points renumbered. Make the sentence bold.

This would greatly aid the regulars on here if POPLA could be persuaded to consider other points as well as GPEOL