Parking eye and britannia parking

Redx

correct , copy and paste it here , minus personal info, if you need it checking

The_Whizzard

Hi all. Here is my draft for my POPLA appeal. I have photos of the entrance and also the area where I was parked and it is not possible to see any signs. You will miss the sign entering the car park and will not notice it when leaving as nobody looks at the rear of a sign as there is nothing on it! Also, you would need a microscope to read the terms and conditions as the small print is...SMALL!!! (and well above head height).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Highview Parking Ltd.
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN: 25 October 2013

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd. requiring payment of a charge of £70 (discounted to £40 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of exceeding the duration of maximum stay permitted at TESCO Woolwich Extra 6785. This issue date on the invoice is 25 October 2013.

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
[FONT=&quot]1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3 No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. Signage
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
6. ANPR Accuracy
7. Business Rates[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. Summary[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The demand for a payment of £70 (discounted to £40 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none as this is a free car park) by Highview Parking Ltd. and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Highview Parking Ltd. lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £2.50 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £30 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. No authority to levy charges[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Highview Parking Ltd. must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Highview Parking Ltd. to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the Highview Parking Ltd. to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the Highview Parking Ltd. produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Highview Parking Ltd.[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Highview Parking Ltd. and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Highview Parking Ltd. can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4. No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Failing to include specific identification as to who “the Creditor” may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Highview Parking Ltd. Ltd., there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Highview Parking Ltd. Ltd. or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is…” and the Notice does not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
5. Signage[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from. It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. I enclose photograph that demonstrate the entrance signage. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

7. ANPR Accuracy
Highview Parking Ltd. are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require Highview Parking Ltd. to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated 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’s vital that Highview Parking Ltd. produce evidence in response to these points.

8. Business Rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for HIGHVIEW PARKING LTD., I do not believe that HIGHVIEW PARKING 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 Highview Parking Ltd. to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at TESCO Woolwich Extra 6785 car park 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]9. Summary[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours faithfully[/FONT]

---

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

I thought your tickets were from PE and Britannia (not Highview?).

The_Whizzard

Oops! Posted the template I was using!!:embarasse Here is mine! D'oh!!

POPLA Reference Number:
Vehicle Reg:
PPC: Parking Eye
PCN Ref:
Alleged Contravention Date & Time:
Date of PCN: **/**/2014

I as the registered keeper received an invoice from Parking Eye. requiring payment of a charge of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) for the alleged contravention of “either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than was made permitted or by not entering the registration details via the terminal, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.” This issue date on the invoice is **/ *****/ 2014. Also, Parking Eye state on the letter of Rejection that I did not purchase a valid parking ticket or the appropriate parking time on the date of the parking event. If ‘Free’ parking is able to be obtained, why would any parking need to now be purchased?

As the registered keeper, I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds:
1 Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
2 No authority to levy charges
3. Signage
4. Unlawful Penalty Charge
5. ANPR Accuracy
6. Business Rates
7. Summary

1. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand for a payment of £100 (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days) is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner. The keeper declares that the charge is punitive and therefore an unenforceable penalty.
The BPA code of practice states: The BPA Code of Practice states:
“19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.
19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. I require Parking Eye to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the “charge” was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business (such as the erection of signage, the provision of back office services, the maintenance of ANPR cameras, cost of membership of the BPA Ltd etc.) may not be included in this pre-estimate of loss.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


2. The amount of the charge is disproportionate
The amount of the charge is disproportionate to the loss incurred (off which there is none by Parking Eye and is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997. I also consider the PCN to be a penalty because being a free car park it is impossible to pay for any overstay. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Parking Eye lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any “loss” claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever. The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking, as the parking meter rate in the corresponding area is £1.00 per hour. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by £40 by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


3. No authority to levy charges
A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorization to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. Parking Eye must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location.
I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Parking Eye to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.
I put the Parking Eye to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorization at this location and I demand that the Parking Eye produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the Parking Eye. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Parking Eye and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that Parking Eye can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third party customer.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

4. Signage
The sign at the entrance to the car park is positioned on a pole on the passenger side of a standard right-hand drive vehicle. This makes the sign difficult for a driver to see from inside the car, regardless of which side of the road the entrance of the car park is approached from. It is also difficult to view this sign without impeding the flow of traffic and pedestrians behind. I enclose photograph that demonstrate the entrance signage. A secondary sign is also obscured by trees, as shown in the photograph. The BPA Code of Practice at Appendix B sets out strict requirements for entrance signage, including “The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead” and “There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background”.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

5. Unlawful Penalty Charge
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car/ Pay and Display park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

6. ANPR Accuracy
Parking Eye are obliged to make sure the APNR equipment is in working order, as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, version 3 of June 2013. I require Parking Eye to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras were checked, calibrated 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’s vital that Parking Eye produce evidence in response to these points.

7. Business Rates
As this car park is now being used for the purpose of running a business by PARKING EYE, which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for PARKING EYE, I do not believe that PARKING EYE 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 Parking Eye to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at Leisure World, Southampton car park 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.

8. Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Yours faithfully

Redx

add a G to Parkin in the opening statement for starters

The_Whizzard

Redx wrote: »

add a G to Parkin in the opening statement for starters

Well spotted!! Mistake amended, thanks.:)

The_Whizzard

:question:Hi peeps. Other the spelling mistake, is this ok?:question:

Stroma

Yes it's fine, just send it off

The_Whizzard

Hi all!
Just to update you on the Parking Eye appeal:
Received an email from POPLA last week to say that I had won my appeal and subsequently received confirmation from Parking Eye to say that the "Charge has been cancelled!!!:j:j:j

Thanks to everyone for your assistance in this matter!!!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

The Whizzard

Dee140157

Does it say what you won the appeal on? Can you post the decision on the POPLA Decisions thread with the assessor's name please?

Well done on success.