Parking Eye POPLA appeal letter - proof read please!

cpr1986

Hi

Many thanks for all the information on here, it is really helpful. Can I bother someone to proof read my POPLA appeal please?Thanks in advance.

[FONT=&quot]Dear POPLA Assessor, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Re: ParkingEye PCN, verification code 6060974012[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] I wish to appeal against a Parking Charge Notice issued by Parking Eye. On this particular occasion, due to unforeseen circumstances I overstayed 57 minutes. I had already paid £3.00 to park for 4 hours, and therefore if I had been able to purchase another ticket the extra hour would have cost me £1.00. I acknowledge that POPLA cannot allow an appeal on the basis of mitigating circumstances and therefore my appeal points are:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No valid contract with the land owner[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Not a genuine pre estimate of loss[/FONT] / the charge is punitive
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Unfair terms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Non-compliance with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR)[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No valid contract with the land owner[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Parking Eye do not appear to own the car park and it is assumed that they are merely agents for the legal owner of the land. In the rejection letter, Parking Eye state that they have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices on all of its sites from the landowner. I require Parking Eye to provide a full copy of the signed & dated contract with the landowner.

A witness statement signed by someone is not sufficient, nor is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original contract, showing the points above, is the only acceptable item as evidence that a contract exists and authorises Parking Eye to pursue customers in this manner.

Should the contract be supplied, I would question whether it is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.



2. Not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss / the charge is punitive

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time, as surely it cannot be the case that all alleged breaches result in exactly the same costs.

Note: the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

I note that in their rejection letter Parking Eye dispute that they are required to justify their charges as a pre-estimate of loss. Nonetheless, they argue that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss on the basis that:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“We incur significant costs in managing this car park to ensure motorists comply with the stated terms and conditions and to follow up any breaches of these. The costs include, but are not restricted to, erection and maintenance of the site signage, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems, employment of office-based administrative staff, membership and other fees required to manage the business effectively including those paid to the BPA, DVLA and ICO, general costs including stationary, postage etc.”

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, these costs are just the normal costs of running the business, not costs suffered as a direct result of my parking on this particular occasion.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Therefore, there is no genuine pre-estimate of loss and the charge is simply punitive in nature. I suggest that a £90.00 charge for an overstay which would have cost me £1.00 to purchase is excessive and totally disproportionate, and I invite Parking Eye to prove otherwise.

3. Unfair terms

The charge that was levied is an unfair term, and therefore not binding, pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Non-compliance with [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I further contend that Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence. I, as registered keeper, contend that these cameras and their operation do not meet the standards laid down in the BPA code of practice.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Faithfully,
XXXXXX[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

''Unclear signage'' is always a must as well as an appeal point. Yes they have signs up (of course) but that doesn't make it clear/readable/low enough to see/read.

This thread needs merging with your original one, the details should be on one thread here.

cpr1986

Hi, this is my original post:



I received a parking ticket through the post a few weeks ago from Parking Eye. The ticket relates to Walker Street Car Park in Preston. I intend to appeal the ticket after reading through the information on here, which has been very helpful so far. I have now received a letter from Parking Eye rejecting my appeal, it is some 10 pages long and, as I am sure is their intention, has made me feel completely out of my depth! I now need to draft an appeal to POPLA and am hoping someone will be able to help? Here’s what has happened so far:

26.02.14 - Date of parking 'offence'
I overstayed a total of 57 minutes, having originally paid £2 for 3 hours and an additional £1 for 1 hour. (I'm a solicitor and I was delayed at court, I managed to get out to buy another ticket but overstayed on that one aswel!)

04.03.14 - Parking charge notice
Initial letter from parking eye asking for £90, reduced to £54 if paid in 14 days.

11.03.14 - My 'appeal' letter
This was written prior to reading the forums! I basically said I had been held up at court, and also that I had tried to renew my parking using the online service but it wasn't working.

13.03.14 - A further reminder parking charge notice

19.03.14 - 'Rejection' letter from Parking eye
This did not make a great deal of sense to me and didn't respond to any of the points I had made in my letter. It said the parking charge had been placed on hold in order for me to provide further evidence, but basically encouraged me to just pay up.

28.03.14 - My second appeal letter
Having read the forums, I sent something a bit more substantial as follows

Dear Sirs

Re: Ticket number: xxx
Vehicle registration number: xxx

I wrote to you on the 11th March 2014 advising that I was appealing the parking ticket. I have received your letter dated the 19th March 2014 which although appears to be in response to my letter, confusingly it does not advise whether my appeal is accepted or rejected. If the appeal is in fact rejected, then you have not explained why and you have not provided me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique appeal reference, which is in your Appeals and Complaints Procedure as set out in your original correspondence (04.03.2014) and your reminder letter (13.03.2014).

For the avoidance of doubt, I believe the ticket was unfairly issued and I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:-

· Mitigating circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why I could not pay for additional parking and I am requesting that the charge be waived for this reason. Please see attached a copy of my letter dated 11.03.2014 and ticket receipts.
The fee is disproportionate
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case, the £90.00 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £4.00 for the 4 hours 57 minutes I was parked. I paid £3.00 so the cost is in fact £1.00.

I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the points raised above.

Yours faithfully,

xxx

07.04.14 – Long letter from Parking Eye
This time they have confirmed my recent appeal is unsuccessful. It says:
Pre-estimate of loss and commercial justification
The Appellant has made submissions either stating or indicating that he does not believe that the Parking charge amount is reasonable/and or a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Parking eye should make it clear at this juncture that the commonly held legal argument that the amount claimed for breach of contract should reflect the losses incurred by the breach (and if they do not they should be considered a penalty) is no longer the method adopted by Judges when deciding whether a charge is a penalty or not. Recently, Judges have found the commercial justification argument to be more persuasive, etc etc. (Let me know if you want me to type the whole lot!)
It then lists cases where they have been successful when the issue has been genuine pre-estimate of loss.
It goes on about one particular case where the Judge apparently agreed that £75 was a reasonable amount, not sure why this is relevant as they are charging me £90!
I have been provided with a POPLA appeal form and reference number.
As I say, if it would help then I will post the complete letter on here but it is very long and I didn’t want to bore everyone with it if it isn’t needed!



I suppose what I am looking for is some advice as to whether it is worth appealing to POPLA? If so, what is the best way to approach my appeal?

Many thanks to anyone who can help me!

Umkomaas

We've seen the PE blizzard of paperwork before, so no need to copy it up here.

As you've got the prized POPLA code from PE then definitely make your appeal to POPLA, where at the moment PE are throwing in the towel without even putting up a response to the appeal.

The NEWBIES sticky thread contains adaptable templates for POPLA appeals, so use one of those as your base model, and post a draft up here for a final look-over and any advice on fine tuning. Make sure you have the key, winning appeal,points of:

1. No GPEOL (the key point)
2. Inadequate signage
3. No proprietary interest or title in the land
4. No contract with the landowner conferring the right to pursue charges to court in their own name....

.... all contained in the sticky.

Also have a read of the POPLA Decisions thread here (especially the most recent cases which will indicate the PE lack of response culminating in a default win for the motorist).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

Be aware that the POPLA deadline date is immutable - work within it or face the prospect of extended PE hassle, usually ending in court papers (not, I'm sure, something you'd worry about handling, but unnecessarily time consuming).

HTH

PS - this is free advice - does it give me some credit with you should I need legal representation in the future? :rotfl:

cpr1986

Thanks, I'll have another look through the templates. I got a bit confused because the parking eye ones seem to be for overstaying on free car parks so I wasn't sure if they really applied to me.

Ha ha, yes of course credit where credit is due! (Only if I win the POPLA appeal though!)

Coupon-mad

You will win now at POPLA, no worries. PE cancel when they see GPEOL etc. in a forum-written appeal.