Parking Eye - Snowden Mountain Railway

thorfan

Do you mean mine :-)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5418086

Coupon-mad

thorfan wrote: »

Do you mean mine :-)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5418086

Yes - and your complaint was on fire!! :T

LJJ

Hi

I did get the evidence pack from PE, which contained photos of the signage (from every conceivable angle!) and it contained this witness statement, as follows

WITNESS STATEMENT

On behalf of Snowden Mountain Railway I can confirm that:

1. The site is Snowden Mountain Railway
2. The Landholder is Heritage Attractions Ltd, who is the owner of the site
3. Snowden Mountain Railway is the duly authorised managing agent, action of behalf of Heritage Attractions Ltd in this regard
4. The Operator is ParkingEye Ltd
5. The Operator has written authority from the Landholder to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at this site.
6. The Operator had authority to issue a Parking Charge for the Parking Event dated 26th August 2015, under this written agreement.
7. The Operator is authorised by the Landholder to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on the site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking.
8. The terms and conditions are clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
9. The issuing of parking charge notices is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions, as also as clearly set out on signage at the site and, where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
10. The Operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above
11. The Operator is authorised by the Landholder to pursue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice

I confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Landholder and that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief


Signature signed by V Hughes
Name: Vince Hughes
Position: Commercial Manager

For and on behalf of Snowden Mountain Railway
Date 3/11/2015

Here is a copy of the rebuttal I sent after receiving the evidence pack from PE

Dear Popla

In response to the ‘evidence’ pack submitted on 3/11/2015 by Parking Eye in support of their speculative and disputed invoice. PCN Number: 501716/094519

In making their assessment I ask the POPLA assessor to consider the following in further support of my original appeal submitted on 13/10/15


The “witness statement” submitted in Section G by Parking Eye is not sufficient as it could relate to any one of dozens of 'alleged breach' parking events at this site on 26/08/2015, it fails to mention any details about the vehicle, the time, the breach alleged or the level of 'parking charge' authorised nor what these charges can/cannot be levied for and any exemptions. If the witness statement was really evidential about the circumstances it should refer to the vehicle and the specific circumstances not be a prepared template from Parking Eye
I would again request a that Parking Eye provide proof in the form of a full contract, 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.


The submission from Parking Eye is clearly a quickly hashed template, there is no reference in the “evidence” pack from Parking Eye to the fact that a staff member informed 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 staff member the driver acted upon by parking there.
*The legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law when the promisor (person making the promise) makes a promise to the promisee (person being promised) who relies on it to his or her detriment.


The information in Section F regarding the signage submitted by them is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The number of signs and the information they relay is not in question - as the driver was acting upon clear instructions of the staff member,they had no reason whatsoever to read the signage at all having purchased sufficient parking in advance and relying upon the information that the ticket was valid in that car park.

I would again reiterate the flaws in the PCN (Item 2 of the POPLA Appeal - No Keeper liability under POFA 2012)

Parking Eye have not submitted any response to this.
The PCN does not tell the 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 fact that the PCN doesn't say the driver 'has not paid'.
There is no 'date sent' or 'date given' on the Parking Eye PCN iIt is merely the date after a staff member prepared the document
- the fact there is no specification of the sum of the unpaid tariff, at all. 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.


Further to Item 3 in the POPLA Appeal - Parking Eye claims that they have asserted the charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and this is given as the justification that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Parking Eye has failed to provide any actual evidence as to how the figures they quote are a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no attempt by PE to provide a clear and detailed breakdown of their estimate.
Further to the ruling on the Beavis Case the Supreme Court made it clear that the charge of £85 was 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 same situation as this the 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 this case. In this case it would have been a simple consumer contract with the driver and any loss incurred is easily calculable as the inadvertently unpaid tariff . The charge they are imposing is a clear penalty for an honest mistake.
As you will see in the written appeal to Parking Eye (10/9/15) the unpaid tariff was offered to the landowner but presumably refused by Parking Eye as they have made no reference to it in their correspondence.



as you say the assessor hasn't even mentioned anything about the further information I sent last week (on 16th Feb), they had it in plenty of time and he has misquoted the PoFA section. (I have never mentioned Section 8)!!

Is it worth complaining to POPLA about this?

What would the procedure be if I still refuse to pay the £100?, is it small claims court or county court?

salmosalaris

County Court , small claims track
Complain to the Lead Adjudicator at POPLA that it is obvious your submissions in response to the operator's evidence has not been considered because no refererence is made to it.

LJJ

Thanks Salmosolaris,
would that be via email complaints@popla.co.uk, but addressed to the lead adjudicator or are you aware of a direct email address for him/her?

Is it worth mentioning the reference to the wrong PoFA section?

salmosalaris

I have no idea who the Lead Adjudicator is or even if there is one .
I may have missed it but new POPLA is becoming more IAS like by the day Mr Greenslade's leaving speech and the exodus of BPA members may have influenced .
Use the complaints e mail ad unless anyone knows better

Others have mentioned the reference to para 8 and the irrelevance . Tad too much hurried copy and pasting going on

Coupon-mad

There is no direct email for the Lead Adjudicator.

Copy the style of the other ones on the forum ystereday where other rebuttals were not read. POPLA seems to be accepting rebuttals by emails and saying hey were added to the file but then the Assessor does not access them at all, does read those words and evidence.

CERTAINLY include the wrong citation of Schedule 4, this is basic stuff POPLA Assessors need to know and can't just say 'I'm satisfied the PCN complies with the wrong section of POFA' and ignore your breakdown of what was actually omitted from this PCN. Paragraph 9 was what you quoted and you showed several omissions from the statutory wording in that section.

It is an indisputable fact that the sum of the unpaid parking charges, outstanding from the driver as at the day before the PCN date (which cannot therefore be the £100 on the PCN dated the next day) were not described. That is the tariff (whether part paid or unpaid, it MUST be shown).

It is a fact there is no 'date sent' nor date given on the PCN and a date issued is merely the date it is prepared in the office and at least 3 days or more before iMail actually POST it.

And POFA states that the 'date sent' MUST be the date the PCN is put in the ordinary post (not the date it was created).

The Assessor cannot have compared the PCN to paragraph 8 (because that's not relevant and does not match paragraph 9, so if he did, he erred) nor paragraph 9 (because if he had compared it to the right mandatory, prescribed wording he would have seen the same omissions you did). The omissions are there and were not properly considered, nor scrutinused at all.

As already said above, you can tell he didn't look at your rebuttal because he says your case was the charge is not based upon a GPEOL. But you rebutted the evidence and added information showing that the Beavis case does not apply here. The Beavis case is not a silver bullet and only applies to rare cases of 'complex contracts' where no money changes hands (the Court of appeal Judges said it was 'entirely different' from a standard financial contract such as this one).

You need to work on your complaint in the style of a couple of others already here because you can't complain the decision was 'wrong' as such. It's about showing the Lead Adjudicator that it's obvious your rebuttal was not read and you suspect only the inforamtion on the Portal from your original appeal was looked at.

That is unfair and contrary to POPLA's stated procedures. The evidence which should have been looked at needs a thorough review in fairness you you as a consumer.

pustit

Are they deliberately mis-spelling Snowdon ?

The_Slithy_Tove

LJJ wrote: »

Further to Item 3 in the POPLA Appeal - Parking Eye claims that they have asserted the charges are a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and this is given as the justification that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Parking Eye has failed to provide any actual evidence as to how the figures they quote are a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There is no attempt by PE to provide a clear and detailed breakdown of their estimate.

Who said earlier in this thread that GPEOL is dead? If a PPC states that the sum is their GPEOL, whether the sums stack up or not, they cannot then decide it's not a loss but a legitimate charge exceeding their losses as per Beavis. I saw a PE evidence recently (Pepipoo, I think) where they still have a paragraph stating the charge is to cover their losses. As soon as they say this, they are sunk where Beavis is concerned.

Guys_Dad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Who said earlier in this thread that GPEOL is dead? If a PPC states that the sum is their GPEOL, whether the sums stack up or not, they cannot then decide it's not a loss but a legitimate charge exceeding their losses as per Beavis. I saw a PE evidence recently (Pepipoo, I think) where they still have a paragraph stating the charge is to cover their losses. As soon as they say this, they are sunk where Beavis is concerned.

I agree that if a PPC submits a suicidal submission claiming GPEOL then it is not dead and you rightly draw our attention to a recent such case. But in other circumstances, it seems POPLA has got a "Do not resuscitate" notice attached to our old friend GPEOL