Parking Eye - Southampton Town Quays

2spicy

Just an update .... Seems my brief online appeal worked ... I have a rejection letter with POPLA appeal code and a live letter saying "as a gesture of goodwill they are extending the 'grace period' for another 14 days to 'only' pay £60" !!.... :rotfl:

Right !.. lets get the POPLA stuff sorted

ColliesCarer

NEWBIES post #3 How to Win at POPLA it is then

prosnap

2spicy wrote: »

"as a gesture of goodwill"

That should say ..... "as a gesture of desperation"

BenefitMaster

2spicy wrote: »

Just an update .... Seems my brief online appeal worked ... I have a rejection letter with POPLA appeal code and a live letter saying "as a gesture of goodwill they are extending the 'grace period' for another 14 days to 'only' pay £60" !!.... :rotfl:

Right !.. lets get the POPLA stuff sorted

don't forget to cite my POPLA win as someone else above did, and as you did in your appeal.

Parking Eye know they are potentially committing fraud by attempting to rely on Keeper Liability on this site.

2spicy

Dear POPLA Assessor,


Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice

POPLA Verification Ref: XXXXXXXXX

I am the registered keeper of Vehicle XXXX XXX and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye whilst at Town Quays Short Stay CarPark, Southampton.
I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:


In Summary

1) The Speculative parking Invoice sent is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2) No standing or authority to neither pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) Flawed landowner contract
4) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
5) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
6) Southampton Town Quay car park has no keeper liability - due to byelaws prevailing. POPLA decision code 6060344057
7) A nursing mother cannot be subject to any detriment relating to any matter to do with breastfeeding

Specifically:-

1) The Invoice sent is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event.

The car park at the time of the alleged breach, was less than half full and so it cannot be said that any impact would have been felt by the business in any case by other users not being able to park, either by ParkingEye or by other businesses in the area surrounding Town Quay.

This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In ParkingEye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011it was rules 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.


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
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.

I have no doubt that ParkingEye will respond with a response claiming to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye the same location (Town Quay), 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 the 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.''

2) 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.
ef. ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646
Parking Eye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598

3) 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. (above)

If ParkingEye are able to '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. !

4)The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver

I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance).

Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car.

5) 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.
(Ref ParkingEye v Fox-Jones 08/11/2013)

6) Southampton Town Quay car park has no keeper liability - due to byelaws prevailing. Specifically ABP Town Quay car park not being "Relevant Land".
It is my understanding that ParkingEye are aware of this issue following POPLA decision code 6060344057.

7) The vehicle was stopped in readiness to go shopping but the passenger was feeling unwell after breastfeeding her baby and the driver then drove out straight away - so the actual time parked was negligible and under the Equality Act 2010, a nursing mother cannot be subject to any detriment relating to any matter to do with breastfeeding.



I request that based on the above defence, my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to instruct ParkingEye to cancel the ‘PCN’.



Yours faithfully,




Spicy

(Register Keeper)

Coupon-mad

Nice one - covered all the bases I think!

2spicy

Thankyou for the expert eye. Was going to print off and post, but just saw that I can submit my appeal online. So, Appeal has been submitted and confirmation email received.

Now to sit back and wait .........

Dee140157

Not recorded. Just get free proof of posting at post office. They could turn recorded away!

2spicy

I WON !!!..

Parking Eye didnt even submit a defense :j:j

---

Quote

---

The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has determined that the appeal be allowed.

The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.

Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.

Shehla Pirwany Assessor

---

End Quote

---

Thankyou so much for the advice, I certainly owe someone a beer for the assistance and great advice

Dee140157

Good news indeed. Can you post this on the POPLA decision thread please so others can share, but maybe in not such a large font!