Parking Eye – Radisson Blu Stansted

obitoo

Hi All, so i'm a little bit confused – hoping you guru's can help on my Popla appeal.

I didnt pay for my stay, since a) I didnt park (waited outside hotel) and b) – the signage says 'park in marked bays' – and outside the hotel there's an access road with one side unmarked with any bay – which is where I waited.

Mitigating circumstances I know blah blah, BUT since I didnt pay, can I still play the GPEOL card? (it says here forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62180281&postcount=15
not to use the no GPEOL wording). Hence my confusion

Secondly, on response to my initial appeal to PE, in which I demanded they explain the the legal basis of their charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee?) - I got the standard 7 page response (quote: “[rejected] because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the t+c on the signage”)

-So do I assume they're pursuing me for Breach of Contract?


Another point is that the first bill they sent me mentioned 'the max free stay is 0 hours 0 minutes' – which I think contravenes 13.2 (reasonable grace period) of the BPA code.

So with those in mind, here's my draft:

Dear POPLA,
Re: Parking Eye, verification code xxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. My points of appeal are:

1) The maximum free stay stated on the PCN is a period is 0 hours 0 minutes which does not allow any driver sufficient grace period to exit the car park. This is not compliant with BPA code of practice 13.1

2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The £100 charge asked for, far exceeds the cost to the landowner who would have received £3.50 from a vehicle parked for up to an hour.
In the appeal Parking Eye did not address this issue, and has not stated why they feel a £100 charge is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss. Parking Eye failed to justify how they can charge a fixed sum regardless of whether alleged contraventions are trivial or more serious.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park is required and should add up to £100. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.

3) Proprietary Interest
The keeper does not believe that Parking Eye has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking eye's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
The keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Parking eye. The keeper expects Parking Eye to prove that they are not in breach of section 7.1 of the BPA code.


4) Unclear, Inadequate and Non-Compliant BPA Signage
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 considerable above eye level, with small print unreadable and clearly not following BPA code 18.1 : 'signs must follow applicable government regulations' regarding readability . Furthermore, the large lettering on the sign invites drivers to 'Park in marked bays only', therefore the keeper contends that it may be construed that not parking but waiting and in an unmarked bay is allowable. The keeper contests that this signage is deliberately unclear.

Yours,

obitoo
xx


Comments appreciated.

Coupon-mad

can I still play the GPEOL card?

Yes, always.

(it says here forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62180281&postcount=15
not to use the no GPEOL wording). Hence my confusion

No it doesn't - it says only use that particular template paragraph if it was a free car park. At no point do I say you can't use no GPEOL v Parking Eye!

So do I assume they're pursuing me for Breach of Contract?

Oh yes.

And your POPLA appeal is concise but seems to have the main points, except I would suggest an ANPR paragraph as well (as shown in the 'Parking Eye - chuck everything at them' examples linked in 'How to win at POPLA' in the NEWBIES thread.

Also if you had only stopped to collect someone then you could add a paragraph that the driver did not park but merely collected a passenger and left within minutes, not taking up any parking bay. As such your case is similar to 3JD08399 ParkingEye v 'Ms X' re Fistral Beach car park, on 17/03/2014 at Altrincham County Court where the defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a space in the crowded holiday season. The judge said the time driving round a car park in Whit week but not stopping in a bay was not 'parking'.

obitoo

Many thanks CM, just my poor reading comprehension then regarding the GPEOL

The reason I didnt mention ANPR, is because their signage looked ok on that to me. Being an anal little git I went back and took photos a little while ago, theres actualy one on top of the other - I wonder if they've been modified recently?

oh I dont seem to be able to post a picture link (when does one stop being a new user?) :

i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t366/avocalodge/20140419_113921_zpsb2ec62f2.jpg


I shall add something about the Fistral judgement - thanks!

Umkomaas

Clickety, click!

http://s1056.photobucket.com/user/avocalodge/media/20140419_113921_zpsb2ec62f2.jpg.html

Custard_Pie

For mine I went all in and quoted every point possible and not just GPEOL. GPEOL has been kind of overturned recently with the Cambridge test case. PoPLA currently just look for that to reject at PoPLA, but does not mean that it won't all change soon. PoPLA have a massive backlog and cases can take months to be heard, by which time GPEOL trend may have changed in favour of PPC's. Adjudicators tend to pick on one defense and use that to reject the invoice. Giving them many to choose from helps that logic IMHO.

obitoo

adding this

5) Waiting is not Parking.
With reference to 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. Fistral Beach(Altrincham 17 Mar 2014), the driver maintains that they neither left the car, nor took up a marked parking bay, nor prevented anyone else from doing so. The keeper requires that Parking Eye produce evidence otherwise. The keeper contests that ANPR evidence of entry/exit to/from the hotel grounds, of which only one half is a marked car park, is not sufficient to prove parking.

Coupon-mad

Don't forget POPLA won't know the court case which is why I explained what it was about, as well. And do include the signage paragraph and you can even say you have had a look and it appears the signs have changed recently with one board place on top of another, which makes you even more sure the signage on the day would not have been clear to the driver.

obitoo

Got it - muchos thanks CM + guys, I'll submit and report back in due course.
cheers!
OB

obitoo

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.

Now the cynic in me wonders if it's cheaper for PE to not contest a case they think they're likely to lose, to avoid precedent. But who knows.

Thanks for all the help guys! :beer:

Dee140157

Well done. If you could post the assessors decision along with name on the POPLA decisions thread that would be good.

nigelbb

obitoo wrote: »

Now the cynic in me wonders if it's cheaper for PE to not contest a case they think they're likely to lose, to avoid precedent. But who knows.

I think that this is very likely they are trying to avoid a precendet as PE put a great deal of effort into threatening & bamboozling vehicle keepers before it gets to POPLA. My guess is that they don't want to give a hostage to fortune as their business model precludes a genuine pre-estimate of loss as the company couldn't make a profit if a GPEOL was all they claimed.