Please Proof POPLA Letter before sending.

Puttyfish74

Hello

Would it be possible for someone to read through my POPLA Appeal letter before I send it off? I have taken bit from the template and other examples I have read that are relevant to my case. Any suggestions/changes would be really appreciated.

Also, just a quick question, would it be advisable to send my appeal letter recorded delivery? I'm conscious of the 28 days deadline / proof of delivery, etc...

Thanking you all in advance and here's my letter:
Dear POPLA Assessor,
Re: ParkingEye PCN, verification code xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal the recent parking charge from ParkingEye. Notwithstanding the adequate notice given to show the change of ownership from Lancashire County Council to the aforementioned, nor any clear indication of changes in parking terms and conditions. I hereby submit the points below to support the reason why I am not liable for the parking charge.

1. NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
The Amount of £100.00 demanded by ParkingEye Ltd. is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss following from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre. As this is a free car park and the stores on site were closed at the time there can be no losses incurred from onsite parking charges or retail revenue. I request ParkingEye Ltd. 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 £100.00 (£60.00 if paid within 14 days).

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.

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.

2. NO CONTRACT BETWEEN DRIVER / INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
Up until recently, parking at Two Saints Retail Park was managed (and has been for many years) By Lancashire County Council and therefore parking after 5.30pm is free.
Parking Eye have not given adequate notice of changes to the change in terms and conditions as stated by BPA CoP (operators should give adequate notice of changes to terms and conditions). This also leads me into highlighting the fact that were any signage present it was not visible in the poor light, nor was it visible via car headlights. The pay and display sign faces inwards (inside a small alcove) and away from the actual parking area, therefore impossible for the driver to see, nor is this area well lit.

This reason alone makes it possible for drivers to enter the car park without seeing the signage and given reasonable time to note any changes in parking conditions, especially at night when my vehicle was parked.

Under Appendix B Entrance signs of the BPA Code of Practice it states 'signs should be readable and understandable at all times ,including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective.'

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication, “Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding. The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

3. NO STANDING OR AUTHORITY TO PURSUE CHARGES NOR FORM CONTRACTS WITH DRIVERS
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.

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. My case is the same.

4. FLAWED LANDOWNER CONTRACT AND IRREGULARITIES WITH ANY WITNESS STATEMENT
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.

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 don't 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.

5. UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there is no demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract as been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. ParkingEye Ltd. could state the letter as a invoice or request for monies, yet they choose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to be deemed as a official parking fine such as the ones issued by Police and local authorities.

6. BUSINESS RATES
As the car park is being used for the purpose of running a business by ParkingEye Ltd., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for ParkingEye Ltd., I do not believe that ParkingEye Ltd. has declared the running of their business venture at this location to the Local Valuation Office and Local Authority for the purpose of the payment of Business Rates.

I put ParkingEye Ltd. to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at Two Saints Retail Park, Ormskirk with the Valuation Office and to provide proof that Business Rates are being paid to the Local Authority, or to provide proof or explanation of their exemption from such Business Rates.

7. 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.

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.

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.

8. ANPR USAGE.
Under paragraph 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states '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 ParkingEye place signs too high 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 contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

8. PROOF OF PLANNING CONSENT FOR 1 HOUR PARKING ALLOWED AND ANPR SYSTEM
It as been known that some parking companies to not have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities for the parking limit time and installation of ANPR cameras. Therefore, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide evidence that they have the necessary planning permissions/consent from the local authorities to operate this car park on a 1 hour time limit and for the installation of the ANPR cameras that are used on this site.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER