Leisureworld - Southampton

HO87

The_Deep wrote: »

If you do complain to the police, complain in writing. But also complain to your local trading Standards Department who may need just one more complaint, (yours), before taking legal action.

By all means complain to your local Trading Standards department but it may well be better, and more efficient, if you complain to Hampshire Trading Standards. It will be that department that ultimately deals with the issue whether you complain to you "local" office or to them direct.

They may be contacted at:

Hampshire Trading Standards, Montgomery House, Monarch Way, Winchester, SO22 5PW.

Don't call them - you will end up having to deal with Consumer Direct. Always write and keep a copy of what you send them.

Edna_Basher

Good advice.

However, in this instance I think the local Trading Standards Office will be at the City Council, rather than the County Council.

Trading Standards Service, Southampton City Council, 5th Floor, One Guildhall Square, Southampton SO14 7FP

BenefitMaster

Yes, this has to be dealt with by Southampton City Council, as Southampton is only in Hampshire for policing purposes nowadays.

Edna_Basher

Although Southampton Town Quay is most definitely within the Harbour boundaries, I’m now not so sure about Southampton Leisureworld.

As part of my challenge to a Parking Eye NTK relating to the Leisureworld site, I was about to give Southampton City Council Trading Standards both barrels regarding Parking Eye’s apparent abuse of POFA 2012. However, having checked things out a little more, I’m now wondering if the Leisureworld site falls outside of ABP’s boundaries.

From the sketchy map included in the byelaws themselves, it’s very hard to tell exactly where the boundary lies. However, I came across more detailed maps within The Port Security (Port of Southampton) Designation Order 2013, available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2272/made

These appear to show the Harbour boundary running behind the Leisureworld site meaning that unfortunately, this may be relevant land after all.

BenefitMaster – I’d value your opinion on this.

Dee140157

I will await confirmation of this for future advice I give. The map is very unclear on an ipad though so may try to access it differently later.

Edna_Basher

I really hope my suspicions are proven to be unfounded.

However, although the map contained in the byelaws is not really fit for purpose, it does seem to suggest that there is a “pinch point” between the river and the harbour boundary just about at the spot where West Quay Road joins the Town Quay (Leisure World is located further up West Quay Road).

This “pinch point” appears to be corroborated by the detailed maps in the 2013 Regulations.

BenefitMaster

Edna_Basher wrote: »

This “pinch point” appears to be corroborated by the detailed maps in the 2013 Regulations.

If you make submissions to POPLA about it not being relevant land, and submit the byelaws, it will be for PE to demonstrate that it is relevant land, and prove it on the balance of probabilities.

I am aware that Relevant Land arguments have won the day for both Town Quay and Leisure World.

Edna_Basher

Thanks BM - much appreciated

It's interesting to note POPLA's position on Leisureworld and byelaws, though I don't suppose a single-point POPLA appeal would be for the faint-hearted.

Identifying how ParkingEye’s NTK fails to comply with the requirements of POFA 2102 is possibly a safer way for the keeper to be absolved of liability for the charge.

Leisureless

Thought I'd update everyone. Parking Eye cancelled my charge - I want to express my sincere thanks to everyone on this site. The advice was accurate, timely and effective. I learnt four things which I hope other Newbies can follow:-

1. Complain bitterly to the Odeon. I really made a nuisance of myself!

2. Take time to write a letter based on the templates but adapted to your needs. This did fit within the Parking Eye character limit.

3. Make it very plain that you will involve other parties. I made it clear to the Odeon that I would contact their CEO and involve local press.

4. Parking Eye - I told them I would contact Trading Standards and potentially the Police.

My Appeal to Parking Eye is detailed below. Its hard to say what was persuasive but my own take is that if it is made abundantly clear that you will take action (and do so) and detail this in a clear persuasive way you will suceed. My final act will be to write to the Odeon again and tell them I'll never visit their Cinema again and tell all my friends too.

****

Re PCN number xxx – sent via Parking Eye Appeal Form dated XX/XX/XXXX
I have received your Parking Charge Notice.
My appeal and all liability to your company is denied on the following basis:-

• [FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Car park is Harbour land which is not relevant land under the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. As the registered keeper, I am not liable for this charge. I decline to name the driver. [/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT]Free parking is available for Odeon customers. This has been confirmed by Chris Norman, Operations Manager Digital on 31st August by email. Proof of purchase is attached. Vouchers issued subsequently are also attached. If any other proof of purchase is required this can be obtained from the Odeon.

• [FONT=&quot]3) [/FONT]The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is it based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss.

• [FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT]Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded. As a result consideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract.

If you do not cancel this invoice you must issue a rejection letter in reply to my appeal, explaining:


1. The legal basis of your charge (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your allegation.
If you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis at POPLA, I will point out that it was a flawed decision, it is not binding, and it is set for the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercial justification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.
2. Proof of your Locus Standi to offer contracts to drivers at this site.
3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed from the driver, and from yourselves.
4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs in situ at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar light conditions.
5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS.


I have complained in the strongest possible terms to the Odeon. Your Parking Scheme preys on the vulnerable and is nothing more than a racket. It smacks of profiteering and is in my opinion illegal. Harassment like this disgusts me and I won’t hesitate to notify Trading Standards and the Police if necessary.



A certificate of posting will be obtained for all written responses and I intend to claim my costs when I prevail.



Cancel the charge now.

*****

Coupon-mad

I have complained in the strongest possible terms to the Odeon. Your Parking Scheme preys on the vulnerable and is nothing more than a racket. It smacks of profiteering and is in my opinion illegal. Harassment like this disgusts me and I won’t hesitate to notify Trading Standards and the Police if necessary.

Nice addition - if I could persuade newbies to use it I would include words like that in the template every time! Well done!