Parking Eye POPLA appeal

thehig

Hi, recently got a PCN from parking eye for parking at the "Two Saints" car park in Ormskirk.
They rejected my appeal so its POPLA time.
Take a look at the letter they sent me, does it seem pretty standard reply from parking eye.



Here is my appeal to POPLA

Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
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) 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 1 hours parking . It is alleged I overstayed in this car park by the total time of 29 minutes.

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.

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):


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 occupants of the car recall seeing no signs on entrance to the car park.. I have already alluded to returning to the car park following receipt of the PCN and can confirm the signage displayed is to the rear of the car park. Should the driver choose to park at the front of car park in an available space, its likely the sign will have been missed therefor no contract entered.


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 29 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. It was approaching darkness and 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,

TheHig

You think this will do ?

Hot_Bring

Point one will win it so go for it.

A word of warning though, POPLA have started to put Parking Eye based appeals on hold because of a court case. I say because of a court case, it's more that Parking Eye have POPLA in their pocket.

In addition, you can tell what scummy corrupt liars Parking Eye are because they have 'forgotten' to mention the court case they use to try and scare you is currently in appeal ! But we wouldn't want to dent Capita's Andy Parker's bonus by using real live facts would we !

andylong42

Looks like we are working hand-in-hand with this one! Just had the same letter this morning. Would you mind if I pinch you POPLA appeal wording Good luck!

thehig

Of take what you need, mine is from a template from this forum.
Hope you win your appeal

Marktheshark

I am amazed a company with a portfolio like Capita are prepared to put out such a misleading document.

trisontana

PE and their tame legal hacks have been warned time after time about their failure to mention that the Beavis case went to appeal. I wonder why the BPA Ltd don't reprimand them for this "oversight"?

Ralph-y

There was some one else who was scammed at that car park ..... They found that the planning permission for the camera was not right ....... May be a search might bring up more info for you?

All so if you did shopping there go back and complain to the shop manager !

Ralph:cool:

thehig

I was at a mortgage broker while there, so I wasn't actually in any of the stores surrounding the car park.
Submitted the appeal anyway lets see what happens will post results

The_Deep

Should this not be brought to the attention of the SRA?

Ralph-y

yes

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

No POPLA ref on that letter. Or have you redacted it? All POPLA PE decisions are frozen at the moment anyway so this will take MONTHS. So, complain to the retail park for quicker cancellation or choose a few national retailers there and email them!