Tower Road, Newquay

Parkrage

This is the letter I'm just about to send (I didn't include the bit about Grace Periods, C-M) as there is dispute over whether 3 hours or 4 hours were paid for, so I thought that might over-complicate matters.

Dear Sirs,

With respect to your letter of 7th April, 2016, I have several concerns:

• Firstly, Wright Hassall are not independent; they routinely act for parking companies and their debt collectors.
• Your letter gives a false interpretation to the position of the Supreme Court with respect to the case of Beavis vs ParkingEye, and betrays an inherent bias towards the parking company. The case of Beavis vs ParkingEye pertains only to free car parks, where one is allowed to park for a limited time. My own situation pertains to a Pay and Display car park, where a parking fee was paid. Indeed, the Supreme Court themselves were at pains to tweet that the judgment was only applicable to the “use of this particular car park & clear wording of the notices”
• In the case of Carguis vs ParkingEye the district judge found that Beavis vs ParkingEye and the Supreme Court ruling did not apply to ‘paid for’ parking and the charges issued by the parking company are a penalty and unenforceable.
• You allow only seven days from the date of the letter (so 3 or 4 days in practice) for further submissions to be made. This is totally unacceptable, considering that this case has been ‘on hold’ for many months. There has been insufficient time for me to find all the necessary documentation as I also have an employer who keeps me busy!
• You state that any further submissions will be sent to the parking company for them to comment, but there is no mention of the appellant having a right to rebut what the parking company comes up with. This is unacceptable.
• It is not clear from your letter whether you have received the documentation that I’ve already sent to POPLA, so I am re-attaching it here.
• I would ask that all my original Appeal points be considered, not just those pertaining to GPEOL.

You should note that I am responding to this letter under sufferance, and would much prefer that my appeal is decided on fair terms by a properly-constituted, genuinely-independent appeals body.

I wish to add the following to my original Appeal.

1. There is a clear breach of the BPA code of practice in that the motorist is not made fully aware that ANPR cameras are used and what the data they capture is used for .
The motorist is completely unaware that ANPR timings are taken at arbitrary points on entering and leaving the car park and these timings form the basis of the alleged maximum permissible stay. It is impossible to agree to not staying beyond a certain time when the driver is unaware of that time. Consequently there cannot be an acceptance of terms or a valid contract as presented by the operator by which the driver can be bound .
Recent POPLA rulings have found in favour of the appellant when this point has been raised.
2. The operator has failed to demonstrate that it has the authority to operate on site as required by the BPA code of practice which states at para 7.3 that the authorisation must set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

The enclosed witness statement is completely inadequate to demonstrate the above requisite authority is in place. It is additionally signed by somebody on behalf of a party that is not the landowner. There is no evidence that the operator has the authority of the landowner to issue parking charges, offer contracts for parking in their name and litigate in their own name .

Again POPLA has recently upheld appeals on this basis


Yours sincerely,

Coupon-mad

You are not posting a letter though. - it'll be email won't it, you have little time.

In the case of Carguis vs ParkingEye the district judge found that Beavis vs ParkingEye and the Supreme Court ruling did not apply to ‘paid for’ parking and the charges issued by the parking company are a penalty and unenforceable.

That's not true and it was 'ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius' (not the other way round) and it was from 2014, way before the Supreme Court decision. Link to the judgments including Cargius, is on the Parking Prakster's blog list of case law.

If you are going to use case law you need to attach it - quote the court case number and date and some words from the Judge - and also adduce it properly. In 2014 no Judge could have travelled forward in time to the Supreme Court ruling in late 2015.

I think if you try not to over-complicate things and rush that to WH by email you'll lose (but then again people will likely lose anyway against this 'PPCs friend' debt collecting solicitor). You need more on showing how the signage here does not meet up to the bar set by the signage in the Beavis case. You have not used that case law in your favour enough yet. PE v Beavis had a lot to say on signage.

Remind us what the main point of your appeal was to POPLA (we can't spend time looking back over 140 posts)?

I believe that people should be telling WH what the POPLA Lead Adjudicator had to say on certain issues and use the Supreme Court's words very assertively, like in the two linked examples. I copied all those quotes from the Judges and Henry Greenslade for a reason, to make WH's job harder to just dismiss an appeal (maybe) because they are meant to be fulfilling appeals which went to Mr Greenslade's POPLA service.

Parkrage

"Remind us what the main point of your appeal was to POPLA (we can't spend time looking back over 140 posts)?"


Well, I wasn't expecting anybody to do that. TBH, this has been going on so long that I've forgotten what the main points of my Appeal were, and, having a job to do, I haven't had time to review properly what I did say. I've just sent Right Hassle my original POPLA Appeal and the rebuttal to PEs 'Evidence Pack' which - being 51 pages sent by email, I just didn't have time to read - particularly as it arrived in my inbox the day my Appeal was due. And this was while I was away on holiday! I really wish I'd paid that guy from another well known 'Parking' site £7-00 to appeal my case for me.


The main gist of my rebuttal to PEs Evidence Pack was based on no proprietary landowner interest, i.e.



"... the witness statement provided by Parking Eye is signed on behalf of Newquay Golf Club. This party is not the landowner and has provided no evidence to substantiate that they have the authority of the landowner (which may or may not be the Trustees of Newquay Golf Club on whose behalf they supposedly act) to authorise Parking Eye to offer contracts for parking in their name and issue parking charges for breaches of any supposed contract; or have the authority to litigate in their own name for breach of contract" .
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

Parkrage

"You are not posting a letter though. - it'll be email won't it, you have little time"

Exactly. It's already gone. TBH I've completely lost interest in it. It's wasted too much of my time already. Also, against my wishes, the RK paid the charge within the time frame. If I win, I hope PE'll have to repay it.

Ralph-y

"I really wish I'd paid that guy from another well known 'Parking' site £7-00 to appeal my case for me."

you would still be in the same position ....

"Also, against my wishes, the RK paid the charge within the time frame."

OMG .....



" If I win, I hope PE'll have to repay it."

nope .......:eek:

its your choice .....

shame .... but you or the RK will be down on a suckers list .......

good job the forum does not charge ...........

any way

good luck on future car parking scams .....;)


Ralph:cool:

Parkrage

Just to say that I've today rec'd an email from Right Hassle to say they've rejected my Appeal and that we have to pay the full amount within 28 days - despite the fact that the RK (against my wishes) paid the intitial £60 within the time frame. We're going on holiday tomorrow, and I've barely time to do anything about it. It's so long since I've been on this site that I've forgotten gow to post a facsimile of their letter, giving the reasons. I did start re-typing it here, but it vanished into the aether!. I'll try again below.

Parkrage

These were the reasons:

Pursuant to the guidance set out in the SCs decision in PE vs Beavis and in accordance with the BPA CoP, a reasonable charge would be £100. As the charge the CPO has imposed is equal to or less than £100, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.

... Upon reviewing the evidece provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with the BPA CoP.

The Appellant has requested evidence that the CPO has a legal right to manage the site. We are in receipt of sufficienrt evidence from the CPO to satisfy us that the CPO does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue PCNs

The Appellant has stated that the NtK does not comply with POFA. From the evidence provided it would appear that all relevant information is included on the NtK and that it complies with POFA.

The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the driver paid for parking in accordance with the T&C of the car park. From the evidence provided it appears that the Appellant paid for 3 hours parking, but thevhicle remained for 4 hours and 15 minutes..,.

This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able too respond to any future correspondence from either party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.

It is as if they are watching our every move, and the day before we're due t go on holiday, they decide to send us this letter!

Coupon-mad

So go on holiday, and when you return you may have a letter from PE asking for payment. It would be interesting to see how much they ask for. Relax. You do NOT need to rush to do anything at all just because WH have written to you.

PE will write next and they WILL give you something like 14 days from their letter, to pay or contact them. So, you will have time to think this through and, like I say, it will be worth waiting to see what PE say insofar as the amount 'due' which should be 'only' £40.

Enjoy your holiday, forget it for now as long as you are back in a fortnight or so, you will not have missed anything that cannot wait. Honestly!

bod1467

Just because an appeal has been lost there is no compulsion to pay. And as the RK has already paid it, there is absolutely no chance of this ever seeing a court room.

Go on holiday and enjoy it - forget about all this.

Ivor_Pecheque

Don't come to Newquay :-)