PE in Feltham

amit03

Hi

I got a NtK from PE in Feltham Cineworld on the 8/5/15, the event was dated 3/5/15.

I have appealed with a template taken from a thread on this forum and as expected PE have refused the appeal. In my haste i replied with an additional appeal advising that the cameras "had not captured the driver (not myself) leaving at approx 17:00 and returning after going to the local train station"

I also attached a bank statement showing transactions and requested evidence that are entitled to issue tickets at this location.

I do still have a popla appeal to submit, PE certify the rejection form was sent on 4/6/14. the actual letter accompanying the POPLA appeal letter is dated 12/6/15. I have tried to construct an appeal using a couple of posts could someone give me guidance on the following:

---

Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA appeal re PARKINGEYE ticket number xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and this is my appeal summarised below. I am not liable for the parking charge and the vehicle was not improperly parked. As such, the parking 'charge' notice exceeded the appropriate amount.


UNCLEAR AND NON-COMPLIANT SIGNAGE
Due to their high position and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in this car park are very hard to read and understand. I contend that the signs and any core parking terms PARKINGEYE are relying upon were too small for the driver to discern when driving in and that the signs around the car park also fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice requirements . I request that POPLA should check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point. I contend that the signs in that car park (wording, position, and clarity) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011).


CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS
PARKINGEYE do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.

In their Notices and in the rejection letter, PARKINGEYE has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from the driver, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract (as evidenced in the Higher Court findings in VCS v HMRC 2012). I would require POPLA to check whether PARKINGEYE have provided a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier (not just a signed slip of paper saying it exists) and check that it specifically enables this Operator to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


NO EVIDENCE OF PARKING TIME
PARKINGEYE are relying on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit the Operator is relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.
Furthermore ParkingEye were advised the driver of the car left the car park in question to go to the local train station before returning. This does not appear to have been taken into account.



BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - (part 21) ANPR
PARKINGEYE have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR). I require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code.


NO BREACH OF CONTRACT AND NO GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS
PARKINGEYE are clearly attempting to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice and must be required to validate this argument by providing POPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this particular 'contravention'.

Since it is a free car park with the Operator receiving no other income than these 'charges' then PARKINGEYE cannot possibly expect POPLA or me to believe that they are operating at a permanent loss at this site. I contend there has been no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) prepared or considered in advance. There can have been no loss arising from this non-event. Neither can PARKINGEYE lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in any 'loss' claimed.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged, this 'charge' can only be an unlawful attempt at dressing up a penalty to impersonate a parking ticket, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), in Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012).
This transparently punitive charge by PARKINGEYE is a revenue-raising exercise and is therefore unenforceable in law
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. It is believed that the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis will have an impact on the outcome of this POPLA appeal. If the operator does not cancel this charge and/or if there is no other ground upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.
.
I respectfully request that this appeal be allowed.

HO87

Before you do anything further you should be complaining - forcefully - to Cineworld and the restaurants concerned. There is every chance that they will be able to call off PE's overweight, overblown, arrogant and ignorant attack puppies.

You might also want to include a section questioning whether PE operate an undisclosed cancellation clause - based on a minimum spend at the facilities adjoining the car park.

Other than that it looks OK.

pogofish

Delete that POPLA code - PPCs do trawl this forum to try and identify people!

amit03

I have complained to both, Cineworld were "sympathetic" but said they can't intervene. Am continuing to make my point in social media.

Could you build your comment about undisclosed cancellation clause please

enfield_freddy

amit03 wrote: »

I have complained to both, Cineworld were "sympathetic" but said they can't intervene. Am continuing to make my point in social media.

Could you build your comment about undisclosed cancellation clause please

Delete that POPLA code - PPCs do trawl this forum to try and identify people!

HO87

PE frequently have a policy - that is not disclosed to car park users - to cancel PCN's if evidence is provided of a minimum spend although it seems that they have either ignored your bank statement or your spend didn't top out the required figure.

How did you approach Cineworld? You need to front up to the manager or better still get hold of their CEO and complain direct to him:

[EMAIL="Mooky.Greidinger@cineworld.co.uk"]Mooky.Greidinger@cineworld.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Make it clear that you spent £x watching film y

Then complain to to CEO of Essenden PLC who are the holding company of Tenpin Ltd. His name is Nick Basing and he may well be found at their head office in Wimbledon - 0208 879 3932 (the number is publicly available) or you may well be able to get his email address too.

amit03

Thanks and done.

amit03

Will make some phone calls and emails, thanks for those details.

In terms of the cancellation clause, I am unclear how to construct a paragraph in the appeal, best attempt is below. Does that work?

Cancellation Clause:

PARKINGEYE have not disclosed the details of the cancellation policy, it is unreasonable to make a claim from the registered keeper without giving them details of the criteria in which they can successfully appeal against the Notice to keeper