ParkingEye POPLA appeal

Lee29

I recently received a parking fine through the post from ParkingEye. I followed the flow chart off the newbies thread and I appealed to ParkingEye using the various templates available. My appeal was rejected and I am now appealing to POPLA, I have used the templates on here to construct my appeal and I would be extremely grateful for some verification that I have constructed the appeal correctly and any advice on how to make it better. Many thanks.

Some extra info:
I brought a ticket for two hours but I was 45 mins late.
It was around 4 o'lock in the afternoon when I returned to my car.
It was a car park in manchester city centre.


Here it is:

POPLA Verification Code:
Vehicle Registration:
Parking Company:
PCN Ref:
Car Park:
Alleged Contravention Date and Time:
Date of Notice:
Parking Charge Amount:

Dear POPLA assessor,

I'm the registered keeper of the vehicle above and I am appealing against the parking charge above, I believe I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds stated below, I would ask that all points are taken into consideration.

1. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

In ParkingEye v Smith at Manchester County Court in 2011, claim number 1XJ81016, the original claim of £240 was deemed an unrecoverable penalty, unrelated to damages incurred and the only sum that could be recovered was deemed to be £15 (the amount of the pay and display fee for more than one visit). The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. As the PCN sum is massively inflated over and above £1.50, I require ParkingEye to submit a breakdown of how this sum was calculated prior to the parking event, as being capable of directly flowing from a minor alleged breach.

The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges '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. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park was mostly empty on arrival and almost empty when the driver left.

The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 30 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.

The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):

The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"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.''

Neither is this charge 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:

''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

2. Lack of standing/authority from landowner

ParkingEye has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put ParkingEye to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). ParkingEye have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear (at best) to have a bare licence to put signs up and 'ticket' vehicles on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied lawfully showing that ParkingEye are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

In ParkingEye Ltd. v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013 District Judge Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. My case is the same.

I require ParkingEye to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

If ParkingEye produce a '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. I suggest ParkingEye don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.

3. 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 on UTCCR 1999, in regard to Group 18(a): unfair financial burdens, states:
'18.1.3 Objections are less likely...if a term is specific and transparent as to what must be paid and in what circumstances.

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".

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

I contend it is wholly unreasonable to rely on unlit signs in an attempt to profit by charging a disproportionate sum where no loss has been caused by a car in a free car park where the bays are not full. I put this Operator to strict proof to justify that their charge, under the circumstances described and with their utter lie about the keeper's right to appeal 'only if the car is stolen' in mind, does not cause a significant imbalance to my detriment and to justify that the charge does not breach the UTCCRs and UCT Act.

4. ANPR Accuracy

Under paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it requires parking companies to make sure ANPR equipment is maintained and in correct working order. I require ParkingEye Ltd. to provide records with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images. This is important as the parking charge issued is founded entirety on 2 photos of my vehicle entering the car park and leaving the car park at specific times. It is vital that parking eye produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye Ltd. v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

In addition, the BPA code of practice contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

ParkingEye fail to operate the system in a 'reasonable, consistent and transparent manner'. As ParkingEye place signs too high to see on arrival, there is no opportunity for drivers in moving traffic at the entrance to be 'informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for'. I contend that as well as being unreliable, this is a non-compliant ANPR system being merely a secret high-up spy camera - far from 'transparent' - unreasonably 'farming' the data from moving vehicles at the entrance & exit and neither 'managing, enforcing nor controlling parking' since the cameras are not concerned with any aspect of the actual parking spaces, nor any parking event at all.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd. to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye Ltd. to strict proof to the contrary.

5. Unlawful Penalty Charge

Since there is no demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract as been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. ParkingEye Ltd. could state the letter as a invoice or request for monies, yet they choose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to be deemed as a official parking fine such as the ones issued by Police and local authorities.

6. Business Rates

As the car park is being used for the purpose of running a business by ParkingEye Ltd., which is entirely separate from any other business the car park services, and generates revenue and profit for ParkingEye Ltd., I do not believe that ParkingEye 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 ParkingEye Ltd. to strict proof that they have so registered the business they are operating at (Car Park Name) 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.

7. Misleading Signs

Terms are only imported into a contract if they are clear and so prominent that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed. The terms are misleading, with wording that dresses up the charge as a 'contractual' fee.

There was no agreement to pay. No consideration/acceptance flowed to and from both parties, so there was no contract formed. This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foisted upon legitimate motorists who are not 'customers' of ParkingEye. It would be necessary for any signs to be so prominent that the terms must have been seen/accepted by the driver.

No reasonable person would have accepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge was not 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning, Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'

The signs there now are certainly not 'startling'. Nor was there any lighting at night to illuminate the terms. The restrictions were not obvious and nor were the terms drawn to the driver's attention - and certainly not the risk of any hefty 'charge'.

The driver says that he doesn't even recall seeing any notices - without that, there is no contract at all. The sign and the Notice to Keeper are ambiguous and contradictory. On the Notice to Keeper the sum is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms and conditions' yet the sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a payment mechanism and a VAT invoice. There is none. This is not a transparent contract and is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise under the doctrine of contra proferentem, the interpretation that favours the consumer applies.

I request that my appeal is allowed

Yours faithfully

Redx

seems to have all it should do apart from no numbered bullet point "at a glance" menu of the main headers, just before the main appeal

hope you havent used the word "FINE" in it as its not a fine despite what you said earlier, its an invoice and should be treated as such, or referred to as a pcn which I believe is what they sent you ?

so check it for errors and other misnomers before completing it on their website, ticking 3 of the 4 boxes (not the stolen one)

Coupon-mad

I would remove 'business rates' (never wins a POPLA appeal and isn't relevant really) and I would move #7 Misleading Signs up to #3 as it's a better point than the others that would then be below it. Apart from that it's a great example of solid forum research from a newbie so you've done good!