ParkingEye - now on to POPLA appeal stage

Coupon-mad

No need to ever post appeals to ParkingEye. Yes it's enough to appeal online only; myself and 4CR do these appeals every evening and like she said, every so often there's a glitch but we never post them, always just take a screen-grab.

You will get your rejection letter in July so start researching POPLA appeals.

Forever_Red

I managed to submit my appeal today but at the second attempt. The first one failed as the jpeg image was above 4mb. I received a PCN even after I had paid for a ticket, luckily we kept the ticket in case we recieved a PCN as a friend had been charged, again even after buying a ticket.

What would have happened if we hadn't kept the ticket? Most people throw these away, but from now on I'm keeping mine. :cool:

Dooogs

Apologies if this is in the newbies thread but I've had a couple of read-throughs without finding this out: once an appeal is lodged with a BPA member (Parking Eye in this case):

a) what's the timeframe in which they should reply with a POPLA code, etc?; and
b) what action, if any, should you take if they don't reply to an initial appeal?

Ta,

Dooogs

Redx

a) 35 days (its in the BPA CoP) , although they could take longer

b) in theory , the BPA could sanction them, in practice , nothing will happen

you should take NO ACTION unless forced into it, let them make their own errors, its in your favour if they fail targets

Dooogs

Belated ta, Redx.

Would anyone mind having a quick look at the draft appeal to POPLA below please- anything obvious missing / wrong? Thanks.

>>>>>

Formal Appeal to POPLA

POPLA Verification Code: XXXXXXXXX
PCN Number: XXXXXXXXXXXX
Vehicle Registration: XXXXXXX
Appeal Date: 21st July 2015
Operator: Parking Eye

Dear POPLA,

I wish to appeal against the invoice, issued as a so-called Parking Charge Notice ("PCN"), as detailed above, on the following grounds:


1 Notice to Keeper is not POFA-compliant

The Notice to Keeper received from Parking Eye is not compliant with paragraphs 9 - (4) and (5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 . The NtK was issued more than 14 days after the alleged event. (the alleged parking infringement occurred on the 25th May 2015 and the initial PCN was issued on the 11th June 2015, 17 days later).
Parking Eye has failed to comply with the requirement under POFA to issue an initial Notice to Keeper within 14 days, and therefore has not fulfilled all the requirements necessary under PoFA to allow it to attempt recovery of any charge from the keeper. The driver of the vehicle has not been identified, or notified to the operator.


2 Authorisation to act on behalf of the landowner

I am not aware that Parking Eye owns this car park, and assume that it is merely an agent of the landowner or legal occupier. In its notice and rejection letters Parking Eye has provided me with no evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. I put Parking Eye to provide strict proof to POPLA that it has the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in its own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. I demand Parking Eye produce to POPLA the appropriately signed contract between the landowner and Parking Eye.


3 Inadequate signage / lack of contract between driver and operator

At no point before entering the car park is it clear that payment within this car park can only be made with coins, and that the payment machines were not designed to accept either banknotes or debit / credit cards. Given the lack of adequate signage to indicate this and the fact that the driver left after 11 minutes (it taking this amount of time to park, establish that the car park did not accept any non-coin form of payment and immediately leave the car park), no contract was formed between the driver and Parking Eye. I put Parking Eye to provide strict proof to POPLA that suitable signage was in place to form a contract by the driver entering the car park, including both a clear indication of what forms of payment were acceptable, and also warning that merely entering the car park to establish means of payment would in itself form a contract.


4. Unlawful penalty charge.

Parking Eye cannot prove demonstrable loss or damage yet a breach of contract has been alleged. It is therefore clear that this Parking Charge Notice is an unlawful attempt at impersonating a legally enforceable parking ticket as issued by the Police or Local Councils. Parking Eye could have made clear the letter was an invoice or request for monies, yet it chose to word it as a 'Charge Notice' in an attempt for it to appear threatening and intimidating in order to extort money from unwitting members of the public.


5. Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The amount of £100 demanded by Parking Eye is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking Eye has provided no breakdown of how the sum of £100 has been arrived at based on the alleged parking contravention. As Parking Eye cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.
Given that Parking Eye apparently charges the same lump sum for alleged contraventions at any time of day on any day of the week, regardless of whether the contravention was serious or trifling, it is clear that no regard has been paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and instead the charge is punitive and is being enforced as a penalty. 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.

Summary
On the basis of all the points I have raised, this “charge” fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA CoP and also fails to comply with basic contract law.

Yours faithfully,

XXXXX XXXXXXX
Registered Keeper

Umkomaas

Place a list of appeal point headers to index your actual appeal paragraphs as your opening shot.

I demand Parking Eye produce to POPLA the appropriately signed contract between the landowner and Parking Eye

.... appropriately signed, contemporaneous and non-redacted contract.

Make it clear that a Witness Statement will not suffice.

As Parking Eye cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, they have breached the BPA Code of Practice, which states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event. This therefore renders this charge unenforceable.

This changed in October 2014. Have a look at the latest CoP v5, para 19.5 - here:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2014_update_V5.pdf

Otherwise a very good, easily read appeal, that you have clearly taken time to construct and one I'm sure you understand what you've put together. Too many times we are asked to plough through massive text blocks that have been copied and dumped from anywhere and everywhere, with apparent little understanding and even less proof reading by the OP!

If you have a bit of time left on your POPLA deadline, leave this up here for a couple of days for any other regular to critique. But don't miss that deadline, especially a ParkingEye case.

Dooogs

Hurrah - appeal won yesterday. I'll post up the verdict later but the point ruled upon was the lack of an evidenced contract between PE and the landowner.
Thanks to everyone on here for help and advice.

Dooogs

11 September 2015
Reference 6061895119
always quote in any communication with POPLA

XXXXXXXXXXX (Appellant) -vParkingEyeLtd (Operator)

The Operator issued parking charge notice number 041617/961220
arising out of the presence at Caunce Street/Church Street, on 25 May
2015, of a vehicle with registration mark XXXXXXX
The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.
The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and has
determined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.

Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is not in dispute that the appellant’s vehicle was parked at the site without
payment being made and that a parking charge notice was issued after this
was detected by the operator’s ANPR system.
The appellant made a number of representations. However, it is only
necessary to deal with the one upon which I am allowing the appeal, that
the operator lacks the authority to issue and enforce parking charge notices
in respect of the land.
The operator rejected these representations. On the question of authority, the
operator stated that they had authority from the landowner for their activities.
Considering the evidence before me, I find that the operator has not
provided any evidence that they have authority from the landowner to issue
and enforce parking charge notices in respect of the site. The operator’s
assertion to that effect is insufficient to show that any authority has been
granted. Accordingly, I cannot find that the operator had sufficient rights in
the land to enter into contracts in respect of it. Therefore the parking charge
notice cannot be held to be validly issued. In the light of this, I am not
required to consider the other issues raised by the appellant.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
Christopher Monk
Assessor

Ralph-y

do the forum have a list of sites that PPC's have had appeals quashed do to lack of authority ?

if not may be we should

Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

Excellent result, because this could have become quite nasty had POPLA ruled against you, as PE are involved.

I've commented on your post to the 'POPLA Decisions' sticky (thanks for posting there for posterity), but just to repeat myself here, and I'd be grateful if you could follow my request:

Please take the following action which will exact some revenge/pain on the PPC!

Please complain/write to the following:

1. Ask the DVLA to stop providing keeper details to PE for that particular site in view of the POPLA statement that they have no authority to operate on this land.
2. Ask the BPA to confirm they will be issuing sanction points to PE in view of the POPLA statement.

Well done on your successful appeal by the way. Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaints are. Link to your original thread with the details when received.

It's imperative we stop these outfits in their tracks if they are flouting requirements placed on them by the BPA/DVLA/PoFA, in order to fleece the general public and profit from their misfortune - without prodding neither the BPA nor DVLA will do tap all!