Total Disastrous Trip To Station - Parking Eye Parking Fine!

Coupon-mad

The POPLA code checker is in post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread near the top of the forum.

Crinklewood

Hi again folks,
Thank you so much for trying to help me.
I've read and re-read all the template letters and information you sent links to and I've tried to put together a letter of appeal to POPLA as best as I can.

However I am a prolific writer and do ramble a bit.

I decided given that I didn't receive a PCN on my windscreen and I had actually followed their automated telephone message guidance saying there were other ways of paying including "Pay By Post" that the points in the templates mostly didn't actually apply.

I have contacted Leeds Council to ask if they knew who owned it but they said it isn't one of theirs and couldn't help me so I'm not too sure if the point about ownership is credible or not.

Citizens Advice / Trading Standards Unit told me to issue a strong letter of complaint to Parking Eye to prove their justification for the high £100 charge - but I'm scared that debt collectors will come breaking my door down if I don't pay or appeal.
I just don't know which way to turn and am disabled to start with (I have a Blue Badge)......and the stress is causing my illness for which I'm disabled to flare up - Rheumatoid Arthritis/Fybromyalgia!

So I've copied below my attempt at an appeal letter but I doubt very much if it is any good.

I would be grateful if you would either condemn my letter and suggest a simpler wording or adjustments - my letter is as follows:-

Dear POPLA Assessor,
I am the registered keeper & this is my appeal:

1) The Signage Is Not Compliant With Their Systems
The signage in theAire Street Car Park informs car drivers that they can “Pay By Phone” and gives
a) Amobile phone App web site address

b) A website to get details

c) Atelephone number

d) A textnumber
When I parked Idiscovered I did not have enough change so chose “Pay By Phone” and tried touse the telephone number option.
However theautomated message asked me for the “Reference Number from the letter I hadreceived”
The signs on thecar park also state that you can pay by phone at any time during your stay.
I had to dash tothe rail station to see my daughter off so decided I would pay when Ireturned. I was gone only 10 – 15 minutes.
When I returned Icommenced trying to pay by phone and also registered a different card to tryand pay with that but the card payment was rejected even though again therewere enough funds in the account to pay.
In total I made atotal of 6 mobile phone calls between 1.10 and 14.06 whilst either stood orsitting in my car in Aire Street Car Park
Due to the systemeither not accepting my credit or debit cards or just giving me the automatedmessage asking for the “Reference Number from the letter I had received” Idecided the best thing was to drive home and use my landline before the time Ihad been in the car park went over one hour.
I was parked for just under one hour and during that time approximately 40 minutes of that hour was taken up trying to "Pay By Phone"
2. Phone Calls To Private Eye From HomePhone (01937830684)
When I arrived homeI recommenced my telephone calls to Private Eye to try and pay for my justunder one hours parking.
I made a total of12 telephone calls to their various numbers.
I didn’t ever getto a point whereby I could pay for the hours parking due to the automated message requesting the "Reference Number from the letter".
Therefore the signsaying “Pay By Phone” is totally incorrect.
2. The “Pay By Phone” System Is Not Fit For Purpose
Due to the detailsrelating to Signage as set out in “item 1” above and my numerous telephonecalls made to Parking Eye’s offices / systems, I found that it was not possibleto “Pay By Phone” other than if I had received a letter with a “ReferenceNumber” to quote
(which obviously because I had only just parked in the carpark I hadn’t).
Therefore the “PayBy Phone” system advertised on the Signage in the Car Park is not fit forpurpose
3. I Paid For Parking At Aire Street Car Park on Friday 25thApril 2014 between 13.10 and 14.06 hours By Post
Following thefailure of the “Pay By Phone” system, together with the automated message whenmy credit and debit card payments were not accepted which told me to go on theweb site for other ways of paying including “Pay By Post”.
I decided to checkParking Eye’s web site for their “Pay By Post” details.
On 28thApril 2014 I sent a letter (copy attached) explaining what had happened on 25thApril 2014 with me trying to “Pay By Phone” for my parking.
With the letter Isent a Postal Order for £3.00 (three pounds) which would cover two hoursparking at the car park .
I sent the letter“Royal Mail 1st Class Signed For”.
4. Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice
As I had followedall the “Pay By Phone” and “Pay By Post” instructions and had sent a PostalOrder for £3.00 (three pounds) which was over the price for one hour’s carparking I was very surprised to receive a Parking Eye Parking Charge Notice for£100.00 (one hundred pounds) reduced to £60.00 (sixty pounds) if I paid withinfourteen days.
5. Written Appeal
I immediately senta written appeal to Parking Eye explaining I had sent a letter “Paying By Post”and requested they refer to it for the circumstances why I did not pay at thecar park.
6. Rejection of Written Appeal
On the 9thMay 2014 Parking Eye sent a letter declining my written appeal saying that Ihad parked but not paid
7. Return of Postal Order
On the 9thMay 2014 Parking Eye also sent another letter thanking me for my originalletter and Postal Order but said they return it because it was not enough tocover the Parking Charge!
8. The Charge is not a genuinepre-estimate of loss
Their sign states “Failure To Comply WithThis Will Result In A Parking Charge Of £100.00”.
As I made every effort to “Pay By Phone” atthe site and then on arrival at my home, plus following the automated telephoneinstructions on “other ways to pay” –
This Operator must prove the charge to be agenuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no loss flowing from this parking eventbecause the car park was not full so there was no loss of potential income in afree car park.

This Operator cannot demonstrate any initial quantifiable loss.
The parking charge must be an estimate oflikely losses flowing from the alleged breach in order to be potentiallyenforceable. Where there is an initial loss directly caused by the presence ofa vehicle in breach of the conditions (e.g. loss of revenue from failure to paya tariff) this loss will be obvious.
An initial loss is fundamental to a parkingcharge and, without it, costs incurred by issuing the parking charge noticecannot be said to have been caused by the driver's alleged breach. Heads ofcost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions,debt collection, etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of thisparking event. The Operator would have been in the same position had theparking charge notice not been issued, and would have had many of the samebusiness overheads even if no vehicles breached any terms at all.

9) Lack of standing/authority from landowner
Parking Eye has no title in this land and no BPA compliantlandowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts intheir own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put UKCPS tostrict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee oragent). UKCPS have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is noassignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name norstanding to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this carpark and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicleson site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfullyshowing that UKCPS are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require UKCPS to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed &dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is notcompliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and doesnot allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this allegedcontravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not besufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witnessstatement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions,charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may wellbe signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply withparagraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parkingcompany must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - notmerely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwisethere is no authority.

10) Unreasonable/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. The OFT onUTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparentas to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) listof 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 failsto fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum incompensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "Acontractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regardedas unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes asignificant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under thecontract, to the detriment of the consumer".

The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant tosection 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "Aperson cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify anotherperson (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability thatmay be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in sofar as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on failure to pay in an attempt toprofit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by acar in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator tostrict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances describedand with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car isstolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and tojustify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.
Evidence:-
I enclosed for your perusal thefollowing 14 items
a) Copy mobile phone call details to Parking Eye on 25thApril 2014

b) Copy Sky Talk telephone invoice showing telephone calls to ParkingEye on 25th April 2014 highlighted

c) Copy letter to Parking Eye dated 28th April 2014enclosing Postal Order for £3.00 payable to Parking Eye

d) Copy Post Office receipt for Postal Order

e) Copy Post Office receipt for Royal Mail 1st ClassSigned For Delivery

f) Copy Royal Mail Receipt Systems Signature at Parking Eye addressfor letter

g) Copy Parking Eye letter dated issuing Parking Charge Notice for £100.00

h) Copy letter to Parking Eye dated 9th May 2014 appealingagainst the charge because I had “Paid By Post” following guidance on their website and automated telephone systems

i) Copy letter from Parking Eye dated 9th May 2014returning my Postal Order stating it did not cover the charge amount

j) Copy letter from Parking Eye dated 9th May 2014rejecting my Appeal Letter

k) Copy photograph (1) of Aire Street Leeds Car Park (site ref: 7600) Signage

l) Copy photograph (2) of Signage outside Aire Street Leeds Car Park

m) Copy photograph (3) of Signage outside Aire Street Leeds Car Park

n) Copy photograph (4) of Signage showing “Parking Eye” name aboveParking Tariff Signage inside Aire Street Car Park
I therefore respectfully request that youassess all my evidence and my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.
Yours faithfully
Sorry to have taken up your time but any advise you could give me will be really appreciated.
Thankyou

Hot_Bring

Remove all the stuff before point 8. You've attempted to mitigate the situation. Point 8 onwards will win it for you - that's why they are the points in the template that you've added to.

Also scrap the evidence section.

prosnap

You also blame this all on UKCPS at point 9.

Coupon-mad

prosnap wrote: »

You also blame this all on UKCPS at point 9.

Good spot, needs changing to PE throughout!

Crinklewood, also remove 'in a free car park' because it wasn't a free car park.

I agree with the others - just send the usual PE POPLA appeal and you'll win - no need for chapter and verse about what happened at all.