Popla appeal letter parking eye on aldi car park

Bobblehead

Hi there,
I know there are lots of people looking for advice and i have tried to do it myself by looking at all the advice but i'm a little worried that i may miss something out.
I received a PCN for £70 for parking on Bolton ALDI car park 6 minutes over the 30 minutes restriction. It was a Sunday late afternoon. There is apparently a machine where you can get tickets inside Aldi where you pack your bags but i always pack mine in the car so hadn't spotted it.

I sent the first stage letter from the newbies thread and received my unsuccessful appeal letter yesterday and have been looking through for the correct POPLA letter to send back. If i could please be advised on which letter would be most appropriate for me.

Also would i mention that the charge is unfair especially as it is only 6 minutes over or just keep to the points?
thank you so much

Dee140157

If you look at post 3 of the newbie thread and click on the blue link "How to win at POPLA" there are several examples of appeals which you can adapt for Parking Eye.

ampersand

First, check that the POPLA code is valid, here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/popla-code-checker.html

|Have you complained to Aldi? Not that it will do a lot of good, but it's important that you show your discontented customer self:-) Let book of face be your friend for this.
https://www.facebook.com/AldiUK/posts/546361388758001
There are others.

As you've found, circs and mitigation are of NIL interest to these scumpanies.

Just work through the newbies guide for your POPLA appeal and put it up here for a once over by the experts.

You might like this:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/10901410.Fed_up_firms_spend___6_000_on_car_park/?ref=rc

n.b. the comment by Undetectableman, 27 Dec 5.52p.m.
Encouraging to read of good mse/pepipoo awareness there.

Bobblehead

Thank you very much, yes i have been to Aldi who were full of apologies but couldn't help as i paid cash and didn't have my receipt. (what else would they think i am doing on their car park for 36mins?) So i just told them they had lost yet another customer.

Yes i thought it would have been a waste of my time mentioning the 6 mins but thought i would check. Will it not go against me that there is a machine in the supermarket as i have looked through so many forums but haven't yet seen this mentioned.

just checked the code - thank you for that - and i have 24days left.

I had heard that there has been a lot of complaints about the range and luckily i haven't been on there for quite a while. I shop at the Aldi in Horwich now as its much nicer their but i am constantly looking for signs put up and changes on the car park.

Okay well i think i have found an appropriate letter so i shall get it wrote up and post it, thank you ever so much for the friendly advice.

ampersand

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:THE RANGE:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Plenty on them. Look what happens when you google:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=parking+prankster+the+range+aldi&rlz=1C1GGIT_enGB308GB353&oq=parking+prankster+the+range+aldi&aqs=chrome..69i57.7313j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
#
Anyway, assume it's PE?
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/parkingeye-dodgy-practices-exposed.html

Just follow dee's pathway and we'll look it over.

Half_way

Bobblehead wrote: »

Thank you very much, yes i have been to Aldi who were full of apologies but couldn't help as i paid cash and didn't have my receipt. (what else would they think i am doing on their car park for 36mins?) So i just told them they had lost yet another customer.

Yes i thought it would have been a waste of my time mentioning the 6 mins but thought i would check. Will it not go against me that there is a machine in the supermarket as i have looked through so many forums but haven't yet seen this mentioned.

just checked the code - thank you for that - and i have 24days left.

I had heard that there has been a lot of complaints about the range and luckily i haven't been on there for quite a while. I shop at the Aldi in Horwich now as its much nicer their but i am constantly looking for signs put up and changes on the car park.

Okay well i think i have found an appropriate letter so i shall get it wrote up and post it, thank you ever so much for the friendly advice.

Get back in touch with ALDI tell them that they need to cancel this ridiculous charge , tell them that if their agents parking eye carry on with this, and you then have to submit a challenge/appeal to POPLA you will be sending ALDI an invoice for your wasted time and any reasonable costs, should POPLA uphold your complaint/challenge/appeal.
Further more if POPLA do uphold your challenge you would expect ALDI to take action to make sure that this never happens again, and youi would also expect ALDI to refund any customers who may have paid their agents - parking eye.
The press/local press may also be interested if it could be worded along the lines of
"
Aldi parking chargees ruled unlawful by independant body POPLA, customers who have paid up may be able to get their money back "

Bobblehead

yes i am considering going to the papers but i decided to finish my appeal first and see how far it is taken. it is happening far too often to people. It isn't even just about people who cannot afford to pay these ridiculous amounts, it is the whole principal. Every time i go to a shopping complex or supermarket, i spend most of my time looking around everywhere making sure i haven't missed a sign!

Bobblehead

right okay i think i have a letter ready so here goes:

ParkingEye PCN, reference code *******
POPLA Code: *********

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) No valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
This car park is a free shopping car park limited to 30 minutes. It is alleged the driver overstayed in this car park by 6 minutes. It was the end of the shopping day on a Sunday and the car park was almost empty. Therefore there can be no loss as a result from this car park event.

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, 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 following 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 less than half full on arrival.

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 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 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 shrunk 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 principal 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 of damages must be compensatory in nature rather than be punitive.”

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers

I believe that this Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, ParkingEye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. This has not been produced by the operator in their rejection statement so I have no proof that such a document is in existence. I contend that ParkingEye merely hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out ‘tickets’ as a deterrant. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I therefore put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between ParkingEye and the landowner. This is required so that POPLA and myself can check that it allows this Operator to make conracts with drivers themselves and provides them with full authority to pursue charges, including a right to pursue them in court in their own name. Please note that a witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place will not be sufficient to provide sufficient detail of the contract terms (such as revenue sharing, genuine intentions of these restrictions and charges, set aounts to charge for each stated contravention, etc.). In any case, ParkingEye’s witness statements have been exposed as photocopy templates from clients who may well have no knowledge of any individual parking event and the signatory may never even have seen the contract.

3) No valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver

I believe that ParkingEye place their signs too high and any photographs supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs with the misleading aid of a close up camera & flash and the angle mat well not show how high the signs are. As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response.

Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without the driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party ‘must’ have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. The driver was not aware of any charges as there was no clear signage anywhere near the area where the car was parked. Nothing about this Operator’s onerous inflated ‘parking charges’ was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied.

4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate
If ParkingEye’s ANPR records are completely reliable (which I contest) then this Operator claims that the car was in the car park for 36 minutes, yet their evidence shows no parking time, just photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that afternoon. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of the ‘parking time’ as the moment of arrival in moving traffic. The exit photo is not evidence of ‘parking time’ at all.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that ParkingEye 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. If there was such a sign at all then it was not prominent, since the driver did not see it. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

In addition I request 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. 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 is vital that this Operator produces evidence in response 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 v Fox-Jones on 8th 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.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye 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.

I request that my appeal is allowed.

Yours Faithfully,




i wasn't sure whether to fully omit No 4 (ANPR system) as it wasn't a pay and display car park, it was free but i felt that the parts i have left in are still valid. I would love some feedback please, so i know i am on the right track, thanks

Dee140157

Looks like a winner to me. You have all the main appeal points in.

Coupon-mad

I wasn't sure whether to fully omit No 4 (ANPR system) as it wasn't a pay and display car park, it was free but i felt that the parts i have left in are still valid. I would love some feedback please, so i know i am on the right track, thanks

That's fine. You will win!

Bobblehead

Thank you so much and cannot believe the amount of help you can receive here. i shall update once i have a reply.... thank you