My PE POPLA Appeal... advice?

ohwhatapalaver

Hi all, I really hope I'm doing this right... I would be really very appreciative of any advice you can give regarding this. I've had the 1st stage appeal rejection letter from PE and now on to 2nd stage POPLA. Here is what I've got so far... I read somewhere to never say 'I' and to always put 'the driver' instead, so that is what I've done. Thanks in advance

Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code: xxxxxxxx

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) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed
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 2 hours parking . It is alleged the driver overstayed in this car park by the total time of 1 hour 19minutes. The car park had several empty spaces when the driver parked and even more upon leaving, therefore there can be no loss of a result of this parking 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 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 driver recalls that the car park was not full on arrival nor upon leaving.

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) 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 did hold a bare licence to supply and maintain (non compliant) signs and to post out 'tickets' as a deterrent. 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 contracts 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 or was 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 amounts 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) The signage was inadequate so there was no valid contract formed

The driver does not recall seeing any obvious signs on entrance to the car park. I have already alluded to returning to the car park following receipt of the PCN and all signs are high up off the ground, making them difficult to read. I must also point out that the driver is short sighted and requires glasses or contact lenses to be able to drive; therefore the driver would have struggled to read the signs at all even if they were noticeable.

Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight or with the misleading aid of a close up camera & flash and the angle may 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 a 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. 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 the car was parked for around 1 hour 19 minutes more than the free time allocated. And yet their evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening.

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 Parking Eye 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 neither lit nor 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 question 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 must produce 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 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.

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 as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case.

I request that my appeal is allowed.

Yours faithfully,
xxxx

TheFlamingRed

Excellent!

Bog standard PE POPLA Appeal, which will likely result in a Bog standard No Show from PE, and a rare congratulations for getting everything right, first post. You're £100 richer, if you look at it in an optimistic fashion (or quite a dull, I am just as well of as I was last week - if you look at it realistically - but that don't feel like quite an achievement, JC Penny style)

ohwhatapalaver

Really?! Ooh, that's good! Thanks for the quick response, I'll sleep a bit easier now.... Thank god for all the templates on here, I would have been !!!!!!ed otherwise!

TheFlamingRed

Yep, it really is that simple to beat Private Parking Tickets.

The only thing you will have to do is come back here in the event you get an Evidence Pack, so you can refute their evidence (I assume one day they will constest them again though you're probably safe until the Beavis case is done, by which time POPLA would have upheld your appeal).

ohwhatapalaver

Thanks, that's reassuring! I'll submit it later today then. Here's hoping!

Dee140157

I actually sent someone to look at your appeal as it was close to what he/she needed, so it was definitely a good'un.

Umkomaas

Can some one confirm if I have made any mistake while making little changes?

I don't think anyone is likely to go through all of that, cross-checking with the other appeal to confirm whether or not your 'little changes' contain any 'mistakes'.

If you wanted that level of proof reading, the least you could have done is highlight the 'little changes'.

But the main point to make is that you need to start a new thread of your own (one issue, one thread rule of the forum) and you will need to give us far more detail about your parking incident, timeline etc. It's very difficult to comment on a freestanding appeal without any context.

So please start a new thread with a bit of background detail, this will help us to help you.