Popla appeal against PE

Umkomaas

A rather old appeal, given that the dead-in-the-water 'Business Rates' appeal point is there.

Also, given that PE are putting great store on the Beavis case, this is a fundamental missing from yours. This does need to be included. Have another search and find a more up to date version.

Coupon-mad

Is that old version really still linked in 'how to win at POPLA'? If so I will delete it as it wasn't the one we meant. Newbies thread post #3.

Satjohn

Thanks, will have a look tomorrow.

Satjohn

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. Non genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount of £90 demanded by Parking Eye is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place.

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 of the 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,

Dee140157

That one looks much better. Has all main appeal points in it this time .

Satjohn

Can't thank everyone for their input enough, I will post how it goes. Positive outcome hopefully thanks to this forum.
Cheers
John

Satjohn

A really big thank you to everyone who gave me advice on how to appeal to popla. Parking eye didn't even respond to popla's requests so they ruled in my favor straight away makes you wonder what these cowboys are up to?? They started off £1 out of pocket from my mistake and after refusing my under payment I sent to them they issued me a popla code which cost them a further £25!! Don't think they would do very well on the apprentice or dragons den!!!😃

Umkomaas

Well done OP. And just to make it even sweeter, their POPLA bill is £27!