Parking Eye - Snowden Mountain Railway

aguynameddarryl

I can't believe anyone pays to park in Llanberis given there is an unbelievable amount of free parking there!

LJJ

In light of the Beavis case decision (shame!) lets plod on ..................
My case with POPLA is pending, PE have sent me (and POPLA) their evidence pack - which as I said above just has a "witness statement" from SMR regarding PEs authority to issue and pursue parking charges at that site.
If I contact PE to ask for a copy of their contract with SMR, and ask them why they have not addressed the issues in my appeal to them - will they inform POPLA that I have refuted their evidence pack - or do I email POPLA myself to let them know?

LJJ

Yes, Salmosalaris, Snowden Mountain Railway is in large letters, - the Parking Eye logo is at the top of the sign, also in large letters

Umkomaas

Make no further contact with PE. You rebutt their witness statement as not being the contemporaneous and unredacted contract necessary to prove they have full rights and authority to operate at the site.

Coupon-mad

LJJ wrote: »

In light of the Beavis case decision (shame!) lets plod on ..................
My case with POPLA is pending, PE have sent me (and POPLA) their evidence pack - which as I said above just has a "witness statement" from SMR regarding PEs authority to issue and pursue parking charges at that site.
If I contact PE to ask for a copy of their contract with SMR, and ask them why they have not addressed the issues in my appeal to them - will they inform POPLA that I have refuted their evidence pack - or do I email POPLA myself to let them know?

You should rebut the evidence pack and if your response is long, email it as a PDF to POPLA and then go to the POPLA comments box and summarise your comments in bullet points and tell POPLA that the PDF attached to your email to POPLA sent at xx.xxpm on 5.11.15 is your full PDF comments sheet on the evidence pack, which you would point out runs to 45 (or whatever) pages and so to restrict comments to {however many} characters in the comments box and only give people a maximum SIX days to comment, is unfair on the public and causes imbalance in your right to respond.

Your comments on the so-called 'witness statement' could state that this will not suffice, especially because it could relate to any one of - very likely given the information in the public domain - dozens of 'alleged breach' parking events at this site on xx/xx/15 because these template statements fail to mention anything about the car, the time, the breach alleged, the level of 'parking charge' authorised nor what these charges can/cannot be levied for and any exemptions.

Nor does it refer to the fact that a staff member of Snowdon Mountain Railway instructed the driver that the parking paid for was valid in this car park, so in that regard the driver relied upon the contract law doctrine of promissory estoppel, in view of the promise from the landowner that the driver acted upon by parking there. If the witness statement was really evidential about the circumstances and signed by someone with knowledge of the issue in this case, it would need to refer to that day and the vehicle and the specific circumstances. Clearly not, it's a prepared template which emanates not from SMR but from ParkingEye.

You could add that because the driver was acting upon the clear instructions of the SMR (landowner's) staff member, they cannot be assumed to have accepted any other contract which indeed they did not, because they had no reason whatsoever to read the signage at all (and they did not) having purchased parking in advance and relying upon the information from the landowner that the ticket was valid in that car park.

Then certainly reiterate the flaws in the PCN, which is not compliant with the POFA 2012 so incapable of holding you liable in law, as the registered keeper.

I hope your initial POPLA appeal explained the flaws in PE NTKS, such as the obvious blow by blow quoting form paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 and pointing out all the statutory wording NOT in the PCN. Such as:

- the facts which led to the charge are missing. The PCN says 'either this happened or that happened' and mentions 'tariffs apply' but does not tell a registered keeper the facts which led to this charge in this case nor even what the tariffs were or whether the vehicle is alleged to have perhaps underpaid, or not paid at all or paid but not input a VRN or paid for the wrong car park.

- the lack of any 'period of parking' evidence, which photos of the car in moving traffic at the entrance & exit do not demonstrate.

- the fact it doesn't say the driver 'has not paid'.

- the fact there is no 'date sent' or 'date given' on a ParkingEye PCN because their 'date issued' is nothing of the sort. It is merely the date after their staff member prepared the document to be saved and queued for much later posting by iMail (at least 48 hours after that, often longer) and we know this is true due to examples in the public domain where the 'date issued' was a bank holiday. Also by the fact the PCN did not turn up for a week {I know it's true, they never do turn up just 2 days after the 'date issued', so don't worry if you can't remember}.

- the fact there is no specification of the sum of the unpaid tariff, at all. This cannot be possibly be meant to be merely the punitive 'parking charge' of the same name. That's because the POFA schedule 4 makes it clear with the timeline that this is the amount outstanding - as at a defined date no later than the DAY BEFORE the date of the PCN - that should have been paid by the driver at the end of the period of parking that day. It is a fact that the driver cannot have paid £100 by any mechanism on site that day, so the figure in question which is needed on a PCN under schedule 4 of the POFA is the unpaid tariff, and it's not there.

salmosalaris

And you need to distinguish your case from Beavis .
The SC makes clear that the charge of £85 waa necessary in one particular car park to deter motorists staying longer than 2 hours to maintain an availability of spaces for motorists patronising the retail park .

This is not the situation here , your vehicle would have been welcome for the period it parked in return for a small tariff therefore the justification of the charge is inapplicable in your case .
In your case it would have been a simple consumer contract with the driver and any loss incurred is easily calculable as the inadvertantly unpaid tariff . The charge they are imposing is a clear penalty for an honest mistake .
I would use paragraphs from rhe CoA judgment that highlighted Beavis was not a consumer contract as there was no financial interaction with PE .
I would also offer the underpaid tariff ( which they will refuse) as evidence that you are not trying to avoid payment of what is lawfully due although you feel it is not your respinsiblity as you were provided with misinformation

LJJ

so on the 28th Jan 2016 I had this email from POPLA

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has now heard the case of ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis and has recently published its decision.
We have conducted our initial assessment of your appeal and our assessor has determined that your appeal relates to the issues recently considered by the Supreme Court.
As such, we will adjourn your case until we have reviewed the Supreme Court’s decision.
Please note that no enforcement action can proceed once a case is registered at POPLA, so the parking operator should not attempt to pursue payment while a case is adjourned.
Yours Sincerely,
Anthony Davidson
POPLA Team

today I received this email

The Supreme Court has now issued its decision in relation to ParkingEye-Vs-Beavis.
We have now considered our position and will allow both sides to provide any further comments or evidence regarding the Supreme Court’s decision.
We asked parking operators for their responses first, so we were able to share them with appellants.

The parking operator provided the following:

"In respect of the enforceability of the Parking Charge, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

At paragraphs 94-98, Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption conclude that, "[…] the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars. […] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those services would not be available. These two objectives appear to us to be perfectly reasonable…."

They then conclude within paragraph 99 that, "while the penalty rule is plainly engaged, the £85 charge is not a penalty. The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss."

Overall, the Supreme Court found that, whilst the penalty rule was engaged, the Parking Charge sought was not a penalty. This is because ParkingEye had "a legitimate interest" in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss."

Please provide your comments or additional within seven days as responses after this point will not be considered. If the portal does not allow you to submit your comments then we will accept these via email to:info@popla.co.uk.
Kind Regards,
Amy Smith
POPLA team


Can anyone help me with a response (my brain is starting to hurt now)
The Beavis stuff was not my only grounds for appeal - I appealed on the following points and rebutted the evidence PE sent.
1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
2. No keeper liability under POFA
3. Not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
4. Unfair Terms

To be honest I just haven't got a clue what any of them are talking about !!!

pappa_golf

they are now going to re-POPLa all the old cases , however it is not going to be the POPLa you expected , the cases are going to be heard by the well known scamming Co called wright hastle http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/british-parking-association-appoint.html




other posters on here and other sites are telling the BPA that they want their files returning , and no (bent) POPLa imput

salmosalaris

"Can anybody help ?"
I certainly will

salmosalaris

pappa_golf wrote: »

they are now going to re-POPLa all the old cases , however it is not going to be the POPLa you expected , the cases are going to be heard by the well known scamming Co called wright hastle http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/british-parking-association-appoint.html




other posters on here and other sites are telling the BPA that they want their files returning , and no (bent) POPLa imput

No isn't this a new POPLA case ?