Parking Eye PCN with car rental

DavePaddi

Thanks Coupon-mad. I have already appealed to ParkingEye. Will let you know when I hear something back from them.

DavePaddi

Hello!
ParkingEye has rejected my appeal, as expected! I will appeal to POPLA and let you know how that goes...
Cheers,
David

Edna_Basher

Hi David

Don't forget to remain in "keeper mode" for your POPLA appeal.

To support your non-relevant land appeal point, you can download a copy of the ABP Southampton Byelaws from:

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Soton%20Byelaws.pdf

You can include this in your evidence for POPLA, quoting the relevant paragraphs concerning the parking of vehicles on ABP land (Paras. 37 and 39).

The map of the Port is appended to the end of the byelaws; this clearly shows the Ocean Terminal as being situated within the Port boundary.

hoohoo

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Hi David

Don't forget to remain in "keeper mode" for your POPLA appeal.

To support your non-relevant land appeal point, you can download a copy of the ABP Southampton Byelaws from:

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Soton%20Byelaws.pdf

You can include this in your evidence for POPLA, quoting the relevant paragraphs concerning the parking of vehicles on ABP land (Paras. 37 and 39).

The map of the Port is appended to the end of the byelaws; this clearly shows the Ocean Terminal as being situated within the Port boundary.

Byelaw 39 relates to parking. Although it does not use the word, 'leaving a vehice unattended' is parking in anyone's language.

POFA 2012 has this to say (my emphasis) if a byelaw relates to parking:

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is
“subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability
(whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a
penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles
generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) “statutory provision” means any provision (apart from
this Schedule) contained in—
(a) any Act (including a local or private Act), whenever passed; or
(b) any subordinate legislation, whenever made,
and for this purpose “subordinate legislation” means an Order in Council or
any order, regulations, byelaws or other legislative instrument.

Edna_Basher

Most importantly, POPLA agrees that Byelaws do apply to parking on the ABP Dock Estate at Southampton. You may quote POPLA Case No.6060755093 – full details are contained in Post #1711 on the POPLA Decisions Thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4488337

DavePaddi

Thanks Edna and Hoohoo, your help was much appreciated.

I have now drafted my POPLA appeal based on the following points:
1. Non-relevant land
2. Notice to Hirer not compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012
3. Contract with the Landowner – no locus standi

Point 1 relates to the fact that the land is subject to ABP Byelaws
Point 2 relates to the fact that ParkingEye didn't attach a copy of the Notice to Keeper, Hire agreement and statement of liability to their Notice to Hirer
Point 3 is questionning if Parking has the right to make contracts with drivers.

I'm pretty happy with those 3 points as I think they are my main grounds of appeal, but do you think I should also include something about no genuine pre-estimate of loss (like that blue section in the Newbies thread), or something about the signage, or the ANPR system? I think these other points are not as strong as the first 3 and might "dilute" the main grounds of appeal. That being said, ParkingEye refers extensively (and almost only) to the ParkingEye vs Beavis judgement, even if it is my understanding that this judgement has been appealed to the Supreme Court. So it might pay to include that bit about no genuine pre-estimate of loss, as it seems to be their only defense... What do you think?

Thanks again for your help,
David

Edna_Basher

Given that the relevance of byelaws has previously been accepted by POPLA, together with the obvious deficiencies in ParkingEye’s Notice to Hirer, I expect that either of Points 1 or 2 should do the trick (so long as your appeal remains in "keeper mode").

With regard to Point 3, ParkingEye have started to chuck into their evidence pack a Witness Statement from ABP indicating that they do have authority to operate. This point might be less successful.

There's no harm adding extra points about signage and unreliable ANPR equipment and maybe even a point about the charge being extravagant and unconscionable.

Once POPLA have notified you of your scheduled hearing date, you need to be prepared for ParkingEye’s usual sneaky trick. Typically they e-mail their evidence pack to POPLA just one or two days before the scheduled hearing date; however, they will send your copy of the evidence pack by Royal Mail such that you probably won’t receive it until a few days after the scheduled hearing date.

bod1467

I thought it was mandated that PPC evidence packs be sent out at least 7 days prior to the scheduled hearing?

Edna_Basher

In the last couple of months we've had a run of 10 or so cases where we received PE evidence packs in the post after the scheduled POPLA hearing date.

Just before each scheduled hearing date, we checked with POPLA to see if they had received PE's evidence. In every case, POPLA advised us that PE's evidence arrived by e-mail just 1-2 days before the scheduled hearing date.

Unsurprisingly, the BPA aren't particularly interested in investigating this. Although their Code of Practice specifies that Operators should send their evidence packs to POPLA and the motorist at the same time, the BPA argue that this doesn't mean that Operator must send the evidence to both parties by the same method (i.e. they think it's okay for the Operator to send POPLA's copy by e-mail and the motorist's copy by snail mail).

Although I'm not aware of a mandatory 7-day rule, I'll check this out.

DavePaddi

OK, thanks, I might add a couple of extra points regarding signage and ANPR.

Just to make sure, I refer to myself as the "hirer" throughout the appeal,. I don't think I have to change that to "keeper", as long as I never use the word "driver", right?

Thanks again for your help,.and I'll keep you all updated.
Cheers,
David