Newbie first attempt at a POPLA appeal

homgif

Hi,

Thank you for all the information on here, I have tried to draft an appea using what I can understand. I have used copy and pasting from various appeals but tailored it to my personal situation (I hope this is allowed).

If you are able please can you have a read through and tell me where I have made mistakes. Thank you so much for your help.

Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. Inadequate Signage
2. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
3. Proprietary Interest and Authorisation to act on behalf of the landowner
4. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
5. ANPR Accuracy
6. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
7. Lack of Grace period

1. Inadequate Signage
The only sign easily visible to the driver said that the users of the car park could have 2 hours free car parking. There was no other easily visible signage to the driver, stating that this time was from entrance and exit of the car park. The more detailed signage is over 6ft from the floor to the base of the notice with signs in Welsh and English one above the other. Given the small typeface used at this height makes the signage illegible. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Nothing about this Operator's onerous inflated 'parking charges' was sufficiently prominent and it is clear that the requirements for forming a contract (i.e. consideration flowing between the two parties, offer, acceptance and fairness and transparency of terms offered in good faith) were not satisfied

2. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
The registered keeper believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles them to levy these charges and to pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. Therefore this Operator has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs) which could be BPA Code of Practice compliant. Any breach of the BPA Code of Practice means that 'registered keeper liability' has not been established, since full compliance is a pre-requisite of POFA 2012.

3. Proprietary Interest and Authorisation to act on behalf of the landowner
As the registered keeper I do not believe that Parking Eye has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give Parking Eye any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking Eye's lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge.

4. The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The £85 charge far exceeds the cost to the landowner would have received from any vehicles parked as the carpark is free. Parking Eye should address the issue of why they feel a charge of £85 is an appropriate pre-estimate of loss.
For this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has suffered as a result of the additional 17 minutes when the car was not occupying a car parking space (when it was queuing for a parking space and to exit the car park), is required and should add up to £85. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, admin, operating costs. parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.
This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty. And in my case this was a free car park with no payment due whatsoever.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.
ParkingEye and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".
No doubt ParkingEye will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''
My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.

5. The ANPR system is unreliable
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored/used. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. No such a sign was visible to the driver as previously mentioned. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised 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 my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case.

6. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is a free shopping car park limited to 2 hours parking. It is alleged I overstayed in this car park by the total time of 17minutes.
In ParkingEye v Smith at Manchester County Court in 2011, claim number 1XJ81016, the original claim of £240 was deemed an unrecoverable penalty, unrelated to damages incurred and the only sum that could be recovered was deemed to be £15 (the amount of the pay and display fee for more than one visit). The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. As the PCN sum is massively inflated, I require ParkingEye to submit a breakdown of how this sum was calculated prior to the parking event, as being capable of directly flowing from a minor alleged breach.
The ParkingEye Notice to Keeper alleges 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. This might be, for example, a reasonable sum based purely upon the alleged lost parking revenue, or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre if another car was prevented from parking. However, this is not the case because the occupants of the car recall that the car park was almost empty on arrival and when the driver left.
The Operator cannot reasonably claim a broad percentage of their entire business running costs as they operate various different arrangements, some where they pay a landowner a huge amount akin to a 'fishing licence' to catch motorists and some where they have pay and display, and others which are free car parks. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 30 minute overstay as they would for 3 hours, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging or trifling), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by this incident in this car park.
The DfT Guidance and the BPA Code of Practice require that a parking charge for an alleged breach must be an estimate of losses flowing from the incident. ParkingEye cannot change this requirement so they have no option but to show POPLA their genuine pre-estimate of loss for this charge, not some subsequently penned 'commercial justification' statement they may have devised afterwards (since this would not be a pre-estimate):
The British Parking Association Code of Practice uses the word 'MUST':
"19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.''
This charge is not 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway) POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson has stated in June 2014 that:
''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts, it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.
This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''
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.

7. Lack of Grace Period
This Operator claims the car was parked for around 17 minutes more than the free time allocated, yet their evidence shows no parking time. On this day the car was parked for the allowed 2 hours, the additional time was used queuing for a parking space and queuing to exit the car park, this is because it is a busy holiday town in peak holiday season therefor it was very busy that day. A precedent on this has been set by ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014), where the defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the ¬-crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence only showed the time of entry and exit to the car park, and not the true time parked. The signage only required payment for times parked, and therefore there was no contravention of the terms and conditions. I believe this to be directly relevant to this appeal.¬


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.

Due to the points as laid out herein I duly request that my appeal is allowed.
Yours faithfully

Any feedback really appreciated as this is a first draft.

Thank you

Umkomaas

Sorry, I've not read through this in detail. A quick skim read shows some of this really needs to be re-worked. The following is a sure fire give away that you've copied and pasted things you've likely not researched and/or not understood.

This charge is not 'commercially justified'. In answer to that proposition from a PPC which had got over-excited about the ParkingEye v Beavis small claims decision (now being taken to the Court of Appeal by Mr Beavis anyway)

The Court of Appeal case is long gone (February 2015) and has been the subject of a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court (July 2015), which will deliver a judgment later this month, or next month.

I'm never keen on random court cases quoted as somehow 'persuasive', unless the quotes fully understands what it is they are quoting and how it relates to their circumstances.

We're dealing with an entirely new entity in the shape of the Ombudsman's delivery of POPLA, so it's wise to be much more accurate and up to date, because I guess if you lose at (new) POPLA, PE will be right on your tail.

Sorry OP.

homgif

Thank you, I put these in as lots of people seem to and I thought it helped. Will edit them out as I don't get the legal bits.

Ii did try to find up to date appeals to try and learn from but guess I didn't get the right ones. Will try again

Thanks again for the feedback.