Parking Eye PCN

BrendanHale

OK, thank you.
One more question... on the POPLA site when i enter my code, they are requesting my details plus the reason for my appeal. As there is no box for an invalid PCN I guess its the box that says "I am not liable for the parking charge"?
Thanks.

Off to read the threads!

Redx

its that or most people tick 3 from 4 (not stolen)

The_Deep

If they have mentioned Beavis, not only is this still awaitung a decision, but it is not relevant as Beavis parked in a free car park with no facility to buy extra time. You indicate that this is a P&D car park.

BrendanHale

Right, first draft of the appeal.
Comments and advice welcome.

1. Parking Charge Notice is Non-compliant.

The Notice to Keeper received by the keeper of the vehicle does not comply with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Sect. 4 as required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA CofP). The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) states the date of the event as 9 Jul 15, and was issued on the 31 Jul 15, a period of 22 days, well outside the required 14 day notice period (Para9. Sub para 4.b and 5.).
Additionally, the PCN only states the time of arrival and the time of exit from the car park. It does not provide any evidence of the charges applicable at the car park, of the parking time purchased by the driver of the vehicle or by how long the vehicle is alleged to have been parked without appropriate payment (Para.8). This lack of information was highlighted to ParkingEye Ltd at the time of first appeal, and has still not been provided. The burden of proof is with ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence that the vehicle was parked longer than was paid for. They have failed to provide such evidence.
ParkingEye Ltd has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. ParkingEye Ltd can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As ParkingEye Ltd have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

2. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority

In the notices they have sent me Parking Eye Ltd have shown no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in Holy Trinity Church Newquay car park. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner instead, who I understand to be the Holy Trinity Church. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park.
I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that ParkingEye Ltd are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name.
I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims such a contract/agreement exists.

3. Period of grace.

The PCN states that the vehicle was in the car park for 3 hours and 10 minutes. The BPA CofP states that there will be a “reasonable period of grace for drivers to exit a car park once a car parking contract has ended”. Given that the paid for parking time is not stated on the PCN it is not possible to determine whether the driver of the vehicle overstayed or not, however, assuming that the Operator has access to records for the period in question it should be possible to ascertain the length of stay that was paid for, and if this period is 3 hours, then 10 minutes would be a very reasonable period of grace.

4. ANPR

ParkingEye Ltd have produced two images of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park with supposedly accurate timings. Firstly I demand that ParkingEye Ltd produce independent verification that these timings are accurate and can be relied upon as evidence. Secondly the timings are irrelevant for the purposes of measuring the parking stay. They are taken at arbitrary positions at the entrance and exit of which the driver would be unaware. The supposed stay has taken no account of reading the terms and conditions, making payment, finding a parking bay and parking and then leaving the bay making it available for another vehicle and finally exiting and all of this in a busy car park. I put ParkingEye Ltd to strict proof that the vehicle was parked for longer than the time paid for because so far they have provided none whatsoever.
With reference to the signage what actually is a stay? I would assert that again under the principle of Contra proferentem "stay" must be read in a way that is most beneficial to the motorist which in this situation was the time the vehicle was actually occupying the parking bay, a time fully paid for.

5. Signage

The signage at this car park makes no mention of the fact that the time taken to find a space, park, queue up for tickets, wait in traffic queues exiting car park etc are all included in the total time allowed on the ticket. In addition the signs are well above head height and are not clearly legible.

6. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Judging by the wording of the Parking Charge Notice this is clearly an attempt to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice in which it states that this must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that may have incurred. ParkingEye Ltd claim that the vehicle was in the car park for 3 hours and 10 minutes. I do not know how long the ticket was valid for (it was removed during a valet approx. 3 weeks after the event) but ParkingEye Ltd are now asking for a charge of £100 for this presumed overstay. This alone is far more than any possible cost to the landowner for the time my car was parked there. According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. The charge is clearly punitive and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Indeed, it is a penalty.

I require the Appeals panel to ask ParkingEye Ltd for a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this presumed overstay. This charge of £100 is clearly unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area (£70 with a £50 discount for early payment – Local Council charges).
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 are no other grounds upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

BrendanHale

Hi,
I have now received an email from the Ombudsman Service telling me that I have 28 days to lodge my appeal with them against Parking Eye.

My provisional appeal is in the post above.

Please could someone cast an eye over it and offer their thoughts or suggestions.

Many Thanks
Brendan

Umkomaas

1.Parking Charge Notice is Non-compliant Notice to Keeper

Put in a bullet point list of appeal paragraph headers as your opening shot, matching the numbers and exact text of each header.

Otherwise looks good - and will be interesting to see how the new POPLA service deals with it. Under the old regime I'd have said that had a 99% chance of success, interesting times ahead!

Keep us posted on progress.

BrendanHale

Thanks for the reply, something like this??


I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye on the following grounds.
1. Parking Charge Notice is non-compliant. Notice to Keeper
2. Parking Eye has no contractual authority
3. Period of grace
4. ANPR
5. Signage
6. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

1. Parking Charge Notice is Non-compliant. Notice to Keeper
The Notice to Keeper received by the keeper of the vehicle does not comply with the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Sect. 4 as required by the British Parking Association Code of Practice (BPA CofP). The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) states the date of the event as 9 Jul 15, and was issued on the 31 Jul 15, a period of 22 days, well outside the required 14 day notice period (Para9. Sub para 4.b and 5.).
Additionally, the PCN only states the time of arrival and the time of exit from the car park. It does not provide any evidence of the charges applicable at the car park, of the parking time purchased by the driver of the vehicle or by how long the vehicle is alleged to have been parked without appropriate payment (Para.8). This lack of information was highlighted to ParkingEye Ltd at the time of first appeal, and has still not been provided. The burden of proof is with ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence that the vehicle was parked longer than was paid for. They have failed to provide such evidence.
ParkingEye Ltd has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. ParkingEye Ltd can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As ParkingEye Ltd have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.
2. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority

In the notices they have sent me Parking Eye Ltd have shown no evidence that they have any proprietary interest in Holy Trinity Church Newquay car park. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner instead, who I understand to be the Holy Trinity Church. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park.
I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that ParkingEye Ltd are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name.
I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims such a contract/agreement exists.
3. Period of grace.
The PCN states that the vehicle was in the car park for 3 hours and 10 minutes. The BPA CofP states that there will be a “reasonable period of grace for drivers to exit a car park once a car parking contract has ended”. Given that the paid for parking time is not stated on the PCN it is not possible to determine whether the driver of the vehicle overstayed or not, however, assuming that the Operator has access to records for the period in question it should be possible to ascertain the length of stay that was paid for, and if this period is 3 hours, then 10 minutes would be a very reasonable period of grace.
4. ANPR
ParkingEye Ltd have produced two images of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park with supposedly accurate timings. Firstly I demand that ParkingEye Ltd produce independent verification that these timings are accurate and can be relied upon as evidence. Secondly the timings are irrelevant for the purposes of measuring the parking stay. They are taken at arbitrary positions at the entrance and exit of which the driver would be unaware. The supposed stay has taken no account of reading the terms and conditions, making payment, finding a parking bay and parking and then leaving the bay making it available for another vehicle and finally exiting and all of this in a busy car park. I put ParkingEye Ltd to strict proof that the vehicle was parked for longer than the time paid for because so far they have provided none whatsoever.
With reference to the signage what actually is a stay? I would assert that again under the principle of Contra proferentem "stay" must be read in a way that is most beneficial to the motorist which in this situation was the time the vehicle was actually occupying the parking bay, a time fully paid for.
5. Signage
The signage at this car park makes no mention of the fact that the time taken to find a space, park, queue up for tickets, wait in traffic queues exiting car park etc are all included in the total time allowed on the ticket. In addition the signs are well above head height and are not clearly legible.

6. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

Judging by the wording of the Parking Charge Notice this is clearly an attempt to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice in which it states that this must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that may have incurred. ParkingEye Ltd claim that the vehicle was in the car park for 3 hours and 10 minutes. I do not know how long the ticket was valid for (it was removed during a valet approx. 3 weeks after the event) but ParkingEye Ltd are now asking for a charge of £100 for this presumed overstay. This alone is far more than any possible cost to the landowner for the time my car was parked there. According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. The charge is clearly punitive and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Indeed, it is a penalty.

I require the Appeals panel to ask ParkingEye Ltd for a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss or damages in this particular car park for this presumed overstay. This charge of £100 is clearly unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area (£70 with a £50 discount for early payment – Local Council charges).
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 are no other grounds upon which the appeal can be determined, I ask that my appeal is adjourned pending the Beavis case.

Umkomaas

Have you changed anything other than putting in the bullet point introduction? If not, there's no point in dumping all that text again. If you've changed anything, please highlight it.

My brain is mush from reading through walls of text. Most other regulars don't even respond now, we've been asked to proof read hundreds upon hundreds, (and they keep coming, day after day) so opt out of commenting in the end!

You need to change this:

1. Parking Charge Notice is non-compliant. Notice to Keeper

Parking Charge Notice is a non-compliant Notice to Keeper.

BrendanHale

OK, point taken.
All I did was add the numbered list to the head of the submission as suggested, and i have now amended the initial line as you have indicated.

I appreciate the input that you and others have given, if I am successful I realise it will be mainly down to the advice received in this forum.

I am learning all the time,

Many thanks

Brendan

Umkomaas

Let us know how things progress. POPLA (II) is new to us, so you'll be one of the trailblazers testing the waters. Your feedback will be invaluable to the thousands that follow you down this path.