PCN for hired car while touring UK

livinhere

Hello everyone,

I visited England this past may as a tourist, and upon returning home received a PCN in the mail from parkingeye along with another letter with a 35 GBP fee for administration charge from my hire company (enterprise) which they said they would cancel if the PCN is cancelled.

I received the PCN for parking at the welcome stop gordano bristol for over the allotted 2 hours of free parking. I had hired a car for which I am the only driver allowed for a 2 week vacation we had in England and Scotland. unfortunately I did not see any signage at the stop, where we were meeting a friend for coffee. we paid cash for the coffee and did not keep the receipt.

I followed your newbie advice and sent the appeal to parkingeye without the points that don't apply to a car hire and have received the rejection and popla ref number .

I had also contacted the owners of the gordano welcome stop, but once I mentioned that I was not from England, they stopped replying to my repeated E-mails.

I was hoping you guys could look over my popla letter and give me any constructive criticism of what I wrote since I do not have the ability to write good legal letters.

I have 4 days left to lodge my popla appeal due to lost time to snail mail in recieving the response along with recent medical issues that didn't allow me time to deal with this until now.

Here is my popla letter:

Dear POPLA appeal,

I rented a car from Enterprise rent a car in order to tour England and Scotland for two weeks on a vacation. One of the first stops on our trip for me and my wife was at Welcome Break Gordano Bristol to meet a friend for coffee at the Starbucks on the premises. As a result of this stop I received a Parking charge notice from Parkingeye.

I would like to appeal this parking charge notice on the following Points:

1. We arrived at the Welcome Break Gordano Bristol to meet up with a friend for a cup of coffee (We unfortunately paid cash for the coffee and didn't keep the receipt). Neither our friend my wife or I saw signage indicating that the parking at the welcome break was paid parking. If we were aware of such charges, we would have gladly paid them (I am still happy to pay the parking charge in the amount of £5 according to the welcome break website).

As per Parkingeye asserting that we entered into a contract with them, on the basis of the fact that the 3 of us did not see the signage – it was not clearly posted or visible and therefore unreadable signage terms, makes no contract possible. We were never entered into a contract since we were unaware of a charge applicable.

2. I have no proof of Parkingeye's landowner authority to issue parking notices on the behalf of Welcome Break Gordano Bristol and would like to have the contract for said agreement provided to prove they have the landowner's authority to do so.

3. The parking notice does not reflect a genuine pre estimate of loss, the parking charge for overstaying beyond 2 hours according to the Welcome Break Gordano Bristol website is £5. For 2 -6 hours. Since I overstayed by 32 minutes according to the parking notice, that is what I should pay and am willing to pay to Welcome Break Gordano Bristol or to parkingeye after showing proof of landowner authority. The charge of a penalty of £100 is punitive and unreasonable.

4. Parkingeye did not follow bpa approved operator scheme code of practice in the appeal process. The incident in question happened on the 17 of May, I didn't receive the parking charge notice until a month and a half later in the beginning of July. I sent an appeal on the 12th of July, but didn’t receive the reply until early August – over 14 days after making the appeal, which they sent by post despite me giving them my e-mail address to allow them to save time and money on their part. Thus they did not uphold section 22.8 of the code of practice that states "You must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it." . Parkingeye's long time to reply also denied me the ability to pay the reduced rate of £60 both times it was possible if I had chosen to do so as required by section 19.7 of the code of practice.

5. The parking charge is punitive in nature in accordance with "The Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999".the charge of £100 for a parking charge of £5 as previously stated according to the website of Welcome Break Gordano Bristol is a penalty that is disproportionally high amount of compensation. Furthermore, I was never afforded the chance to pay a reduced rate due to the extended time in took Parkingeye to send me notice by post despite having my e-mail address.

6. I was a genuine customer of the Starbucks at Welcome Break Gordano Bristol and had I known of the genuine customer exemption in the Parking Eye contract with the landowner, I would have requested my ticket to be cancelled.

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.
Yours faithfully,



I probably did a !!!! poor job after a long day since its past 3 a.m. now, I think there are a few inconsistencies as well between section 2 and 6.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Northlakes

Very good attempt but it needs to be a bit more legalistic in my opinion.

Sorry that as a visitor to the UK you are having this problem.

It just needs to be a bit more legalistic.

Cut out para 1 as is its no concern of POPLA they are only interested in legal points.

Put bullet headings at the top referring to the detail below it.

The no landowner authority 'no locus standi' is the No 1 winning point so needs to come first.

Item 6 is in fact a 'hidden term' and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Use the words 'I contend' to assert that PE are wrong.

Have a look through the winning POPLA appeals in the thread at the top of this forum page.

Post it up again when you have done this but don't miss the deadline for submissions by E-mail.

Finally go on trip advisor and tell everyone to avoid UK motorway services. They are a rip-off and should be avoided wherever possible with the notable exception of the Westmorland Services on the M6 at Tebay and the M5 at Gloucester.

Redx

check a recent PE popla appeal already approved on here and plagiarise it

like these ones

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5273210

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5298352

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5241357

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5269251

here is an older one but it gives you the basics and the flow of how it "looks"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5050633

remove all the I did this parts that are not relevant due to the fact you only need the legal arguments in the appeal , none of the "story"

Enterprise should have followed BVRLA guidelines and given PE your hirer details, no fee necessary

use the POPLA website to upload the appeal in word or pdf format (not snail mail , not email either unless they have changed that policy recently due to the website issues they had) - tick 3 boxes from 4 (not stolen)

make no contract - no standing first , poor signage second , pofa 2012 and Beavis last

sorry this experience has marred your visit here, we dont like it either as its tantamount to highway robbery

get a good legal point popla appeal in , win it and cost them money as well (about £30)

then get your enterprise money back and complain about them charging you instead of following BVRLA guidelines from 2014 that say they should name the hirer and stay out of it , its not a fine, not a penalty and I doubt that you will find anything in the hire contract allowing them to make this charge

Ralph-y

do you live in the UK? ..... if not where ?

Ralph:cool:

livinhere

Thanks for the advice Northlakes and redx.
As per your suggestions I have completely rewritten the appeal based on other formats and letters, added points, rearranged points and made the letter more legalized as per the examples you provided.
I am afraid though that now the letter of appeal has grown to quite a large size. Is this a problem? what should i cut\reduce?

at least now its only 2:30 in the morning, so I'm doing slightly better

here is the 2nd draft of my popla appeal - 3 days left to hand it in...

thanks in advance:beer:

POPLA Appeal

POPLA REF: XXXXXXX

CAR REG: XXXXXXX

OPERATOR NAME: Parking Eye Ltd

As the Hirer of the car mentioned above I would like to appeal the parking charge notice issued by Parking Eye Ltd for a number of reasons outlined below:


I appeal this decision on the following grounds:

1. Parking Eye Ltd has no contractual authority.
2. Non BPA /MSA compliant signage
3. The charge is punitive and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
4. No Contract was entered into between Parking Eye and the hirer
5. Unfair terms of contract.
6. Hidden terms of contract
7. Non compliance with BPA code of practice
8. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance



1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority.

In the notices sent to me, Parking Eye have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in Welcome Break Gordano Bristol, they do not have the necessary legal right to act. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from me as the hirer. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land and therefore have no locus standi.
I can assume instead, they are agents for the owner instead. 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 proof of a full unredacted copy of the contract in force at the time of the parking event on the 17th of May 2015. 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. The appellant clarifies that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.


2. Non BPA /MSA compliant signage

We arrived at the Welcome Break Gordano Bristol to meet up with a friend for a cup of coffee at the Starbucks on the premises Neither our friend my wife or I saw signage indicating that the parking at the welcome break was paid parking. If we were aware of such charges, we would have gladly paid them (I am still happy to pay the parking charge in the amount of £5 for ataying between 2-6 hours according to the welcome break website).
I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the signage is in the late evening when we arrived and left, whether the signage is illuminated appropriately to easily see and read at the time of night we were there and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park (I unfortunately can't take these pictures to show that we in fact couldn't see signage due to poor lighting and\or poor placement since we were tourist visiting England at the time, and are no longer in England).
I contends that the signs and any core parking terms Parking Eye are relying upon, were too small for any driver to see, read or understand. I requests that POPLA check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. The appellant contends that the signs on this land (wording, position, clarity and frequency) do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach.

SIGNAGE NON-COMPLIANT WITH MOTORWAY SERVICE STATION REQUIREMENTS
This was a Motorway Services Area. Operators of Motorway Services Areas (MSAs)and their agents must comply with the requirements of Government Policy. These provisions are reflected in the Traffic Signs Agreement into which they enter with the Highways Agency. The Highways Agency, on behalf of the Department for Transport (DfT), published a policy on the provision of roadside facilities on its network. That policy is 'DfT Circular 01/2008: Policy on Service Areas and other Roadside Facilities on Motorways and All-purpose Trunk Roads in England'.

The policy states that “B19. At all types of site, where a charge is to be levied for parking beyond the mandatory two free hours, the charging regime must be clearly displayed within both the parking areas and the amenity building.”

The compliance of the MSA with the above policy is disputed and the appellant therefore requires ParkingEye to prove that such clearly displayed signage exists within the amenity building(s) at the car park in question – specifically between the parking outside the Starbucks and the Starbucks itself. It is not enough to prove that such signage exists within the car park itself.

Furthermore the policy states “All signing of roadside facilities and signing arrangements within sites must comply with the current Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and any other guidance as may be issued from time to time by the Department for Transport or the Highways Agency. Approval must be sought from the Highways Agency’s signs specialist for the use of all non-prescribed signs.”

The appellant requires Parking Eye to show proof to the POPLA adjudicator that the DFT/Highways Agency has granted special authorization for ParkingEye's traffic signs in this particular MSA to be exempt from this policy requirement. It will not be acceptable for Parking Eye to claim that these particular signs are in Parking Eye's own opinion not 'traffic signs' when these signs have not been erected or positioned to direct pedestrians but instead act to provide information to vehicle users who may never leave their vehicles.

The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height and lighting of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in during late evening. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. The appellant believes the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. The appellant requires the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that the appellant and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the £5 amount presumably due in a machine on site.


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

Judging by the wording of the parking charge notice this is an attempt to enforce this charge under section 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. Whilst the car park is free for 2 hours and to park for 2-6 hours is only £5 according to the Welcome Break Gordano Bristol website, ParkingEye are asking for a charge of £100 for this penalty. This alone is far more than the cost to the landowner could have lost for the time the car was said to have parked there. The charge is clearly punitive and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract. A charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.

Furthermore as the operator is clearly seeking to impose a penalty, it is their sole responsibility to provide a full breakdown as proof of the pre-estimated loss of £100. As of this point they have made no effort to provide me with a breakdown of the costs they allegedly incurred. To justify the charge of £100, the appellant requires Parking Eye Ltd to back up their decision by providing POPLA with a full and detailed financial breakdown of the pre-estimated costs they have suffered as a result of the charge in question, flowing from an initial loss, which in a free car park is zero! I would like to add that normal costs of running their business (their day to day costs like provision of parking, enforcement, signage, salaries, rent etc) must not be included in the breakdown as ParkingEye Ltd would need to pay these irrespective of this alleged charge. Parking enforcement costs cannot possibly represent any loss resulting from an alleged breach of contract, as these costs would need to be paid whether the breach had happened or not.


4. No Contract was entered into between Parking Eye and the Hirer

We arrived at the Welcome Break Gordano Bristol to meet up with a friend for a cup of coffee on the evening of the 17th of may. Neither our friend my wife or I saw signage indicating that the parking at the welcome break was paid parking.
As per Parkingeye asserting that we entered into a contract with them, on the basis of the fact that the 3 of us did not see the signage – it was not clearly posted or visible and therefore unreadable signage terms, makes no contract possible. We were never entered into a contract since we were unaware of a charge applicable.

It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the signage is in the late evening when we arrived and left, whether the signage is illuminated appropriately to easily see and read at the time of night we were there and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to see the signs, get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

The appellant requests that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.



5. Unfair terms of contract

Although there is no contract between Parking Eye and the hirer, if there were, then the Appellant would ask POPLA to consider this charge to be unfair and non-binding based on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. There is a clear list of terms that apply. The appellant has highlighted the following specifically as he believes they apply directly to this case:

2. (1) (e) Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

5. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was brought in to protect consumers from unfair contracts such as the one ParkingEye Ltd are suggesting. A company such as Parking Eye needs to actually prove that the driver saw, read and accepted the terms, which is impossible because this did not actually happen.

6. Hidden terms of contract
We were genuine customers of the Starbucks at Welcome Break Gordano Bristol and had I known of the genuine customer exemption in the Parking Eye contract with the landowner - which is in fact a 'hidden term' and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, I would have requested my ticket to be cancelled.

7. Non compliance with BPA code of practice
Parkingeye did not follow BPA approved operator scheme code of practice in the appeal process. The incident in question happened on the 17 of May, the parking charge notice wasn't received until a month and a half later in the beginning of July. An appeal was sent on the 12th of July, but didn’t receive the reply until early August – over 14 days after making the appeal, which they sent by post despite me giving them my e-mail address to allow them to save time and money on their part. Thus they did not uphold section 22.8 of the code of practice that states "You must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it." Parkingeye's long time to reply also denied me the ability to pay the reduced rate of £60 both times it was possible if I had chosen to do so as required by section 19.7 of the code of practice.


8. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance

I require Parking Eye to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at Welcome Break Gordano Bristol were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronized with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that Parking Eye must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system is compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:

''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached at Welcome Break Gordano Bristol. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA COP breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when the appellant believes it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.



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.


Congratulations if you reached this far! you're a trooper!
What do I do now?

livinhere

Don't live in England, just came for a vacation - I came, I saw, I got ticketed and was watched everywhere... what's with you guys and cameras?? do you not like privacy and personal space? felt a little 1984ish.

Northlakes

Get that submitted via the POPLA website and you will win.

Keep receipt of submission safely.

Redx

looks great apart from 2 minor issues

move not a gpeol to the last point and renumber the points plus the bullet point menu to suit (or swap 3 and 8 round and renumber accordingly)

leave the Beavis paragraph in blue from the newbies sticky thread below the last point 8) (which will then be "not a gpeol")

then submit it as a word doc or pdf on the popla website as an attachment once you have put in your popla code, put "see attached full appeal" in the comments box and maybe add the top part in as well, with bullet points included , then add the "see attached full appeal" as the last comment

you should then get emails from London Councils telling you its being processed and an expected hearing date , watch out for the evidence pack and prepare a REBUTTAL if you get one, possibly a week before your hearing date

GingerBob_3

livinhere wrote: »

Don't live in England, just came for a vacation - I came, I saw, I got ticketed and was watched everywhere... what's with you guys and cameras?? do you not like privacy and personal space? felt a little 1984ish.

That's how it is in the UK today. There's an epidemic of surveillance, unmatched anywhere else on earth. It makes me vomit when I look around and see spy cameras in ALL public places, ANPR cameras on all major roads and car parks, not to mention speed cameras, fixed and mobile, everywhere you look.


I think it's something to do with the curtain-twitching mentality of your average Briton, who seems to think it's good to be watched and whose mantra is "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to worry about".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

Ralph-y

OK I am obviously in need of my daily education update

if the OP lives outside the UK ..... would it not be ignore?

I like the idea of POPLA anyway as it costs the PPC £££

Ralph:cool:

Redx

its more about the hire company not following the guidelines and then charging the OP a fee as well

a popla win means he is supposed to get his money back from Enterprise

the fact that the PPC will have to pay the popla fee as well is icing on the cake