Have things changed with PE appeal?

Redx

have a look at this one and tailor yours in a similar fashion

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5353963

susi

I have removed the following sections
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]No genuine pre-estimate of loss[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [FONT=&quot]and[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Unfair [FONT=&quot]contract[/FONT] terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, do I need to add anything more or is this sufficient?
Edit[FONT=&quot]ed as I have changed a couple of things and found a few mistakes......... Hope Im getting there, I really need to get this submitted tomorrow[/FONT]
[/FONT]


POPLA reference number:
Parking Eye Reference Code

Vehicle reg. no.

On 19/09/2015 I received a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye to Keeper alleging a parking “offence” on 15/09/15, at ..........................

This car park is used frequently as a through road which was the case on this date, I myself use it regularly for this purpose so I am familiar with the site but on this occasion the driver has not been identified.

As registered keeper I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for any parking charge:

1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability

2) Inadequate and non-compliant signage

3) PE lack any proprietary interest in the land and have no compliant contractual authority from the landowner./holder

4) ANPR records are unfit for purpose and cannot be held to 'prove' the duration of parking

In rebutting this unenforceable invoice, as Registered Keeper of ............... I wish to appeal the above parking charge, In so doing, I invoke and accept the protection offered to keepers in the POFA 2012
As registered keeper, I am not liable for the alleged Charge, nor will the driver be named, under the protection offered to Keepers in the POFA 2012


1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability, expanded in points [a] to [e]:


(a) The period of parking is not specified in the Notice to Keeper, only the times the vehicle was seen in traffic on arrival and on final departure that day.

There is no evidence of parking at all.

(b) The Notice to Keeper does not inform the Keeper that the Driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking, nor that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

(c) The Notice to Keeper fails to set out any unpaid parking charges for the specified period of parking.

POFA requires that a Notice to Keeper describes any unpaid charges which the Driver owed at the time of the issue of the postal Notice to Keeper.

A charge for breach of contract cannot be described as unpaid by the Driver at the time the Notice to Keeper is issued, because it only arises at the time the Notice to Keeper is received.

The punitive amount now being pursued for 'breach' should not be confused with the sum intended by Schedule 4 of the POFA.

The Act requires that any unpaid tariff that the Driver allegedly owed before the Notice to Keeper was issued, must be stated. This is the only sum that can be pursued from a registered Keeper.

(d) It also fails to show the geographical address of the client/Landholder.
This is a requirement for all consumer contracts, as well as being in breach of the POFA..

(e) The requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA as regards the wording in a compliant Notice to Keeper are prescriptive, unequivocal and a matter of Statute, not Contract Law.

Any omission, or failure to set out any of the mandatory wording, means there is no Keeper liability.

This point alone invalidates this Notice To Keeper (NTK) for lacking clear and concise information relating to the alleged parking event, eliminating any right to claim allegedly unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle under Paragraph 4(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

In this case the Driver has not been identified, so the failure of PE to meet the conditions to invoke Keeper Liability means there is no legal basis for the charge to be enforced against me as Keeper.


2) Inadequate and non-compliant signage.


The only signs are on poles, away from the Pay & Display machine, which is not a 'sign', nor does it communicate full contractual terms & conditions.

Any upright signs were not so prominent among all the other signage on site that they were ever seen by the occupants of the car.

ParkingEye place their signs so high that terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder to try to read them. Any photos supplied by ParkingEye to POPLA will no doubt show the signs in daylight, or with the misleading aid of a close-up camera..

In addition, the angle may well not show how high the sign is, nor the fact that ParkingEye signs are but one among many, lost in the clutter of this busy customer car park.

As such, I require ParkingEye to state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of each, taken at the same time of day, without photo-shopping or cropping, and showing each sign's location in the myriad of other information bombarding a customer or unseen by fleeting through road users, as in this case.

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 'terms' and 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.

3) PE lack any proprietary interest in the land and hold no compliant contractual authority from the landowner./holder

The Operator has no neither standing, nor or authority to form contracts with motorists. Parking Eye has not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper in connection with parking at this site.

Parking Eye does not appear to have any ownership interest in the car park, so I contend they have no legal standing to enter into a contract with a driver in their own right, nor any legal standing to pursue charges for breach in their own name.

As an agent only, Parking Eye has no automatic standing or authority which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

If Parking Eye wish to rely on a contract with the Landowner to claim authority to demand money from me, I must have the opportunity to examine that contract.

I therefore require Parking Eye to provide an un-redacted, contemporaneous, signed and dated copy of the contract between Parking Eye and the Landowner, which, to demonstrate standing and authority, must specifically state
- that Parking Eye has the right to make contracts with drivers in their own name, that they have full authority to pursue charges through to court in their own name
- and that the Landowner allows Parking Eye to charge £100 for an alleged parking contravention.

A witness statement to the effect that a contract is in place, which could be signed by someone who may never have seen the actual contract, will not be sufficient because it will not show the terms and conditions relating to the Operator’s authority, nor any restrictions that are in place.

If Parking Eye wish to rely on any such contract, I require them to show, on a point-by-point basis, that the contract is in complete compliance with all the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


4) ANPR records are unfit for purpose and cannot be held to 'prove' the duration of parking


The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate.

ParkingEye's evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out.

It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic, if they in fact offer a pay-and-display system which the driver can only access after parking. Even so, this arrival time shot is when the clock, in fact, starts.

The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay-and-display machine clock, nor even to relate to the same parking event.

Of course, the ANPR cameras times, as supplied by Parking Eye, show only the first and last visits.. The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR-work

'The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

a)Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.

b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Even if an Operator shows a list with 'no record' of that car registration in between the times, this would not discount the 'double visit' possibility, as it is well known that car registrations are completely missed when a vehicle is followed closely by a higher vehicle, or by a temporary interruption in the camera recording.

Even an item temporarily obscuring the camera from picking up a car registration, such as a passing bird or wind-blown carrier bag, or leaves appearing in front of the camera, even for moments, can and do stop a record appearing of a car leaving in between the stated times.

I put the Operator to strict proof to the contrary. All camera records could be checked and this Operator would still be unable to refute the 'double visit' possibility, since they don't bother to record continuous footage, this not being CCTV. If this is not so, Parking Eye must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no repeat entries or exits that day by this car.

Further, 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 and used.

I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and how the data will be used and stored. . 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.

Indeed, I question the entire reliability of the system and 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............. entering and exiting at specific times.
This concludes my POPLA appeal

susi

Bumping up, can someone have a quick look over this for me please :-)
Can I also ask as Im not familiar with using this but I have done this on microsoft word. Do I save it as a word document and then just attach it to the online form?

susi

Anyone Please?????

susi

Its been quite a while since the appeal was sent in and this was recieved yesterday, is this what usually happens? As nothing has arrived from PE I take it they need contacting by phone as there is only 7 days grace? Also when logged on to the Popla appeal status there dosent seem to be anywhere to add information only to track the progress??? Any advice appriciated

Your parking charge Appeal against Parking Eye Ltd.

In order to assess your Appeal fully we need some further information. Please let us know:

The operator has provided our offices with its case file in response to your appeal. As per our process, you are now allowed 7 days to consider this response and provide your comments for our consideration.

Please note that POPLA is unable to provide you with this case file as it is the responsibility of the parking operator to provide you with this. If you have not yet received it, please contact the parking operator to request this.

Please enter this information onto the portal using the log in details that were provided previously.

We need to receive this information within seven days of the date of this correspondence in order to include it as part of the assessment of the Appeal. Anything that is provided after this time may not be considered as part of the assessment and the decision will be made based on what has already been received.

Yours sincerely

Ami Edwards

Guys_Dad

Complain to PPC
Complain to POPLA asking for a stay
Complain to BPA

All in writing or email

susi

Thank you, email sent to POPLA asking what information is required as it isnt clear and asking for a bit more time as nothing from PE. This was submitted early November, is it usual to take this long? Can you please tell us what PPC and BPA are Guys Dad and thank you for replying

Redx

acronyms are explained in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread

pogofish asked you to read it in the first reply in post #2 on page one last october !

susi

Thank you emailed all three of the above

susi

Nothing much to report, email from PE saying they have already sent the case file (nothing in emails whatsoever) have requested it be sent again. Email from POPLA advising to get in touch with PE but still not answering questions on the further information required. Sent another email to them stating file requested from PE but still dont know what the further info is and once again asking for a stay. A bit like going round in circles!!!!