Highview parking fine

Jackkebab

Hello,

I've received a charge letter from HIGHVIEW PARKING for allegedly being 1 minute over my ticketed staying time. They also claim that this is the 3rd letter (which is nonsense) and have bulked the charge up to £125!!
I've copied an appeal letter and modified it and I would be greatful if you could have a read and let me know if it's an good or not?
Thanks!!!


Parking Contravention Charge Notice Number:
Vehicle Reg:
Date of Issue: 19/08/2014
Company in question: Highview Parking Ltd


On 22/08/2014 I received an invoice from Highview Parking Ltd requiring payment of a charge of £125.00 for the alleged parking contravention. Further more they claim this is the 3rd letter sent by them to me and have added an additional £40.00 which is the “charge” is so high; I cannot state any stronger that this is utter nonsense as I have not received any of the 2 alleged previous letters.

I would now like to appeal this charge notice with POPLA on the following grounds:

1. Sum demanded is not in any way representative of the financial losses suffered by the landowner

According to the extremely ambiguous letter of charge my vehicle appears to have overstayed by 1 minute and has therefore somehow incurred this “charge” (date in 14/06/2014 time 11.12 and date out 14/06/2014 time 13.13). However these times are taken from the CCTV times allegedly showing my vehicle entering (as in just crossing the property line off the main public road) at 11;12.43 and again leaving (as in pulling onto the public road) at 13;13.17 and therefore this is not at all representative of the actual time “parked” as you must remember that it requires time to first park in a free space and walk to and obtain a ticket from the ticket machine; and by the same logic it again takes time to load your vehicle and leave the parking bay upon your return. Therefore I postulate that it is reasonable to deduct a period of at least 5 minutes from the alleged times, and therefore clearly making my vehicle well under the alleged overstayed period and thus completely negating the claim against me as There is no loss arising from this preposterous incident. Neither can Highview Parking Ltd lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed. I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, even if there was a contract (which is denied), the charge made by Highview Parking Ltd is:

a. Punitive
The charge that Highview Parking Ltd are levying is punitive, contravening the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and therefore void (ie unenforceable). The charge of £125 is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. The driver also considers the PCN to be a penalty because Highview Parking Ltd have alleged a breach of terms and conditions and yet have not quantified their alleged loss (which cannot include business running costs nor the POPLA fee). Nor does it even equate to local council charges (which in any event are a completely different beast).

b. Unfair
The charge Highview Parking Ltd are levying is an unfair term (and therefore not binding) pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, 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" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."

c. Unreasonable
The charge Highview Parking Ltd are levying 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.”

2. No right to charge motorists for overstaying
Planning consent is required for car parks and has conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put Highview Parking Ltd to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

2. Misleading and unclear signage

a. British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice Version 2, March 2013, Para 18.2 states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use”.

The sign at the entrance of the car park was not compliant with the example in appendix B, neither did it state any Terms and Conditions or reference to where these were. Entrance into the car park can be completed by turning left from a very busy main road. Signage on the entrance was inadequate to make this clear.


3. Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice to Process


h. Schedule 4, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

The Notice to Keeper (Appendix does not comply with these requirements in the following manner:
1. Whilst the Notice to Keeper does specify the outstanding amount of the parking charge it does not specify the maximum additional costs that Highview Parking Ltd may seek to recover.

2. No landowner/occupier contract
there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and therefore Highview Parking Ltd has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to Highview Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that Highview Parking Ltd produces a copy of their contract with the landowner, which must be BPA Code of Practice compliant. This means specifically, that the contract must be dated before this parking event and show that Highview Parking Ltd are granted rights to form contracts with drivers on site and to pursue their charges in the courts in their own name.

3. Insufficient interest in land
For the theoretical case that a contract could be deemed to have been established, and all the disputed terms to be validly incorporated, it is challenged that Highview Parking Ltd has sufficient interest in the land concerned to offer any contracts for parking in the first place. Highview Parking Ltd will have to provide a full copy of their contract with the landowner, or provide proof that they are the landowner, of the land in question; otherwise their capacity will be insufficient to even provide an offer for parking.

4. Trespass
If there was no contract, then at most the driver was guilty of a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied). If this was the case, the driver would be liable to damages. Given that they did no damage to the car park and furthermore that the car park was not full when they parked or left and the parking spaces were ‘free’ to use, It is suggested that there was therefore no
loss at all.

5. ANPR Accuracy
Highview Parking Ltd is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. I require Highview Parking Ltd to 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 Highview Parking Ltd must 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 by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as 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 Highview Parking Ltd to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of the above 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. Highview Parking Ltd 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 Highview Parking Ltd in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put Highview Parking Ltd to strict proof to the contrary.


I therefore submit this charge should be dismissed.

Kind regards

bazster

You've missed out Clause 13.4 of the BPA Cop:

"You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave
the private car park after the parking contract has ended,
before you take enforcement action."

Complain to the BPA Ltd. about this breach.

Nodding_Donkey

Have you actually got a POPLA code from Highview OP?

Jackkebab

Thanks bazster! I've added it.

Jackkebab

Nodding Donkey; I've got nothing stated on the letter as a POPLA code if that is what you mean?

Jackkebab

Ah im with you now. No I've not got a POPLA code yet as I've not yet appealed to the HIGHVIEW, my plan was to submit the above appeal to them first in the hopes that they just !!!!!! off

fisherjim

Then you need to alter the wording of this as you have just copied and pasted an appeal to POPLA, whereas it should be an appeal to Highview.

The_Slithy_Tove

Jackkebab wrote: »

I've received a charge letter from HIGHVIEW PARKING for allegedly being 1 minute over my ticketed staying time.

Formal complaint to the DVLA for their DPA breach.
Highview are clearly in breach of the BPA AOS Code of Practice for not providing ANY grace period.
Breach of BPA CoP = breach of their KADOE contract with DVLA.
Therefore DVLA should not have released your details.


Demand to know what specific checks were done on the request for your details by Highview (hint: "Highview are members of BPA" is not a valid or sufficient response). As DVLA have been informed time and again that PPCs are breaching the BPA CoP all the time, why are they not making their own checks.


Next stop, the ICO.

Coupon-mad

Jackkebab wrote: »

Ah im with you now. No I've not got a POPLA code yet as I've not yet appealed to the HIGHVIEW, my plan was to submit the above appeal to them first in the hopes that they just !!!!!! off

No, use the first appeal template from the Newbies thread.

Jackkebab

Morning all.

I submitted my appeal using the template in the newbies section and they have rejected it. I now have a POPLA code also. The interesting thing is that they now claim that the supposed crime isn't being 1 minute late, but it is that the "driver" didn't purchase a ticket at all as they have no record of it? I find this to but confusing and insulting as neither myself or my partner have ever done this!! We always put a ticket on! Either they are totally trying to scam me or one of us entered the REG details wrong into the all singing all dancing ticket machine!!
Advice guys please?

Dee140157

Visit post 3 of newbie thread and find appropriate

There may be an issue with the NTK. I think that the description of the event on the NTD (windscreen ticket) must be reproduced one the NTK.

It does not, therefore it is (I think) is a non complaint NTK and therefore no keeper liability applies.

Someone else should pop in and clarify, or I will look for something to back that up later.