POPLA appeal Couple of questions

Igloo33

Hi

I recieved a 'Parking charge Notice' from Parking Eye for overstaying in a 'free for 2hrs'.
I appealed to parking Eye on Genuine Pre-Estimate Of Loss and also that no contract was made as signage was both too high and lettering of terms and conditions too small to read (without a ladder).

They have rejected this and sent me a POPLA code. I'm decideding whether to take this appeal to POPLA and have a couple of questions:-

1. Since recent the Beavis case, is the GPEOL still valid with POPLA ?
2. Am I correct in thinking that POPLA will use the BPA code of Practice to determine if fine is permittable ?

Many thanks for reading, I would appreaciate answers to these two questions, and any other ideas on how to proceed

Fruitcake

I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't want to appeal this at PoPLA.


It is not a fine.


Read the PoPLA decisions thread and find some that match your case, especially if there are any at the same site as yours.
Use all the appeal points you can find.


POPLA should use the BPA code of Practice ... Don't bank on it though, which is why you need to get every point you can into your appeal including other legal arguments not in the CoP. Do not miss the deadline.

Coupon-mad

Show us your draft POPLA appeal, using as your starting point, the examples linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. We'll help. DO NOT use an old example, use the one from the NEWBIES thread, post #3 then change it to remove everything about P&D machines.

Show us what you cobble together.

The_Deep

If you can, get measurements of the sign, type, numbers, size and colours of the fonts, height above the ground, if there is small print, see how long it tales to read, is it written in plain English? Is it readily understandable? Is it legible at night.


You are unlikely to beat PE on GPEOL, but they are vulnerable on contracts, standing, planning permission, business rates etc.

bargepole

Fruitcake wrote: »

...you need to determine if the situation is the same. parking lie paid the landowner to run a parking scam on their land in the Beavis case, so was effectively acting as landowner...

I can't believe people are STILL giving out this misguided and dangerous advice, which is 100% wrong.

In all three Beavis hearings, it was determined that the contractual arrangements between landowner and PPC, are irrelevant to the contract between PPC and motorist, who would not in any case be aware of those arrangements.

Nearly all PPCs pay some kind of bounty to the landowner, usually based on paid tickets. The fact that PE pay an upfront amount at one particular site makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

salmosalaris

I agree with Bargepole , can I also make a suggestion ?
If someone believes that the fact PE paid the BA pension fund is of any relevance then they pick up a ticket and both appeal to POPLA and defend in court on the single point alone that Beavis does not apply in their case .
They should then report back with their success.
I won't be holding my breath

Igloo33

Hi All
Its taken me a while - Im not brilliant with words so would welcome any critism, Mostly cobbled from others appeals but would particularly like someone more knowlegable to comment on my part 3 (Not sure, but think although badly worded could be good)

thanks


[FONT=&quot]Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code
POPLA Code: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent ‘Parking Charge’ from ParkingEye Limited (Termed ParkingEye in the rest of this document ). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:


[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No locus standi[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers or third parties.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) The signage was i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nadequate and not readable so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver or keeper.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] In the unlikely event that POPLA should Uphold that a contract exists, such a contract would be highly ambiguous, unfair and possibly illegal since some signage demands terms and conditions, that are impossible to uphold.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate - evidence does not discount two visits shown as one.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5) Unlawful Penalty Charge [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No locus standi[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers or third parties.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
ParkingEye do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question (XXXXXX Retail Park). As such, I do not believe that ParkingEye has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, I require POPLA and myself, sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Code of Practice[/FONT][FONT=&quot], to specifically allow ParkingEye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers or third parties.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) The signage was i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nadequate and not readable so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver or keeper.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having visited the site to assess the validity of the ParkingEye claim, I have discovered that, although there are many signs, they are inadequate to constitute a contract.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signs to the entrance do not show penalties or other terms and conditions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They have small print that suggest “see signage in car park for terms and conditions” .A driver manoeuvring into the car park, would be unlikely to safely be able to read this small print without taking their attention of the road ahead.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signs showing penalties and terms of conditions are printed using lettering that would be difficult to read if the signs were at eye level. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This problem is compounded since these signs are mounted very high up (Over 7 Ft) on poles such that they are not readable up close, as the viewing angle distorts their lettering. If the reader stands further away to mitigate the angle problem, the distance makes the text appear even smaller. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe that ParkingEye place their signs so high that the full terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A customer distracted with thoughts of their of shopping visit in the retail park, may not even see the signs as their attention is likely to be at eye level looking for the quickest route to the door of their chosen retail establishment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Two other problems also affect the possibility of whether a driver will even see the signs.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]a/ There are ornamental trees in the retail park that obscure the signs. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]b/ ParkingEye signs are just one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this busy customer car park[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are a lot of signs for the retailers, there is a multitude of Graffiti and street art making the location very visually distracting. I do not believe Parking Eye’s signs to have been prominent enough to guarantee that they will be noticed, read and understood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If ParkingEye wishes to argue my case, they ensure that they state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, without editing or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among the myriad of other information bombarding a customer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3) In the unlikely event that POPLA should Uphold that a contract exists, such a contract would be highly ambiguous, unfair and possibly illegal since some signage demands terms and conditions, that are impossible to uphold.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ambiguity[/FONT]:-

[FONT=&quot]There appear to be 3 different signs relating to parking and driving in the retail park [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are signs that read “Parking limited to two hours.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Also other signs that read “2hrs Maximum Stay”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The terms ‘stay’ and ‘parking’ do not appear to be clarified or defined on any sign so may, or may or not refer to the same event.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The signs do not rule out the possibility that there are granted “two hours for parking” and an additional “2 hours of stay”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Parking is a common word in the English language but has several meanings including:-
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I’m just parking my car” where “parking” is a verb to manoeuvre a car. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I assume the driver managed to manoeuvre my car into a parking space in less than 2 hrs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If this is the definition that Parking Eye is using, then should prove this with video footage if it is available.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“We’ll park up for a couple of hours” this is using ‘parking’ as an adjective and is describing the past, current or future position or state of an object or vehicle. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When used as an adjective, one common usage is to refer to the period where the car is stationary and unoccupied. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example: The period in between loading and unloading or locking and unlocking the doors.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If this is the definition that ParkingEye wishes to use, their evidence should show the unoccupied vehicle in a parking space. Not whilst it is being driven in and out of the car park.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Since there is a variety of meanings that a driver could understand from the words “parking“ and / or “stay”, without further definition, it would be grossly unfair to use these terms in a contract without proper explanation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not well versed in law, but a little reading suggests that where ambiguity exists, the rule of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Contra Proferentem [/FONT][FONT=&quot]holds against the party that writes the contract.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Impossible contract condition:-[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]One of the terms on a sign suggests “Parents and toddlers only in marked bays”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and depicts an image as one might expect to find painted on the asphalt within the parking bay. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Equivalent to finding a depiction of a wheelchair image painted on the asphalt of a disabled parking bay.) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This term suggests that the driver (who is a parent and has young children) should have found a bay marked specifically for the use of “Parents and toddlers” or been liable for a penalty. However, examination of the car park reveals a designated bay for a vet and some disabled bays but no Parent and toddler bays exist. Therefore, I suggest this term is impossible to comply with and must amount to a grossly unfair contract and may even be illegal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate, and there is no evidence that this was just one visit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parking Eye's evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic before the driver has parked or even been in sight of any signs that show the terms and conditions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The exit of the car park is situated within just a few car lengths of a very busy junction with traffic lights. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If the driver is turning right they can only leave the car park when the lights are green and: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] a/ there is a gap in the traffic [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b/ If another driver ‘generously gives them space’.

Unfortunately, at busy times, gaps are rare and cars that could ‘generously give space’ are unlikely to see a car waiting at the exit as it is partly obscured by a railway bridge. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Exiting this car park is notoriously difficult and a driver may be waiting for some time before being able to safely proceed. There is no evidence that the exit photo is not taken after a car has been in position at the exit for some time. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the entry camera, a reliable external clock or even to relate to the same parking event.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
As keeper I cannot discount that this may have been a double visit (possibly even with two drivers since the car has more than one family member who drives it). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA's view is[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: '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...'[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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. Or even an item temporarily obscuring the camera from picking up one car registration, such as a passing bird or wind-blown carrier bag or leaves appearing in front of the camera, even for moments, would stop a record appearing of a car leaving in between the stated times.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 I am wrong then they must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no more entries or exits that day by this car.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
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 ParkingEye 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. 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.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]5) Unlawful Penalty Charge [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), ParkingEye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]xxxxxxxxxx {registered keeper's name...}[/FONT]

Igloo33

Just to add,I need to submit this very soon, I've taken photos, should I submit these or let Parking Eye provide their own photos, should they be inserted into my appeal document or submitted as separate images ?

Thanks again to all who have contributed above

Umkomaas

I've skimmed through it.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

Take this out of your first appeal point, you have it in your final appeal point; once is more than enough!

You don't have a 'No Keeper Liability' appeal section. Essential - and should be point #1. Check your NtK very carefully - word-for-word - against the Parking Cowboys' checklist. For example, does it actually state the following:

- What land the car was parked on
- The period the car was parked

And there may be others too.

(My bolds) - the NtK I expect only shows entry and departure times, not the parking times. Split hairs - make them jump the hurdles to prove their case!

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

On the Signage point - I would submit photos to prove any point you are making. I would particularly go to town on the large block of tiny print at the foot of the PE signage.

You also need photos of these 'ornamental trees' and how they are blocking signs.

The signs to the entrance do not show penalties or other terms and conditions.

In terms of the Entrance signage, the BPA CoP doesn't require penalties to be shown.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS_Code_of_Practice_October_2015_update_V6..pdf

Also in terms of signage, are you sure PE signs show this - I can't remember, leave it in if they do?

One of the terms on a sign suggests “Parents and toddlers only in marked bays” and depicts an image as one might expect to find painted on the asphalt within the parking bay.

Are you arguing that you car was caught out by a 'double dip'? If not, why put this (and its following chunk) in?

As keeper I cannot discount that this may have been a double visit (possibly even with two drivers since the car has more than one family member who drives it).

If you are unequivocally stating that this was a double dip incident, you must make a much more categorical statement in your appeal.

That's my contribution - good luck.

Igloo33

[FONT=&quot]Thanks for the very useful suggestions Umkomaas changes are in Orange I have also made a couple of minor changes to my section 4 but I still don't feel im getting my point accross very well on that area.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code
POPLA Code: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent ‘Parking Charge’ from ParkingEye Limited (Termed ParkingEye in the rest of this document). [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - no keeper liability.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No locus standi[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: No standing or authority to pursue charges or form contracts with drivers or third parties.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) The signage was i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nadequate and not readable so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver or keeper.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] In the unlikely event that POPLA should Uphold that a contract exists, such a contract would be highly ambiguous, unfair and possibly illegal since some signage demands terms and conditions, that are impossible to uphold.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate - evidence does not discount two visits shown as one.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6) Unlawful Penalty Charge [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The validity of a Notice to keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Protection of Freedoms Act[/FONT][FONT=&quot] stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ParkingEye have failed to include the following mandatory information:-[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]What land the car was parked on[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]The period the car was parked[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore there is no keeper liability.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No locus standi[/FONT][FONT=&quot] - No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers or third parties.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
ParkingEye do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question (XXXXXX Retail Park). As such, I do not believe that ParkingEye has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Accordingly, I require POPLA and myself, sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Code of Practice[/FONT][FONT=&quot], to specifically allow ParkingEye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers or third parties.


[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3) The signage was i[/FONT][FONT=&quot]nadequate and not readable so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver or keeper.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having visited the site to assess the validity of the ParkingEye claim, I have discovered that, although there are many signs, they are inadequate to constitute a contract.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The signs to the entrance do not show penalties or other terms and conditions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They have small print that suggest “see signage in car park for terms and conditions” .A driver manoeuvring into the car park, would be unlikely to safely be able to read this small print without taking their attention from the road ahead. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The [/FONT][FONT=&quot]British Parking Association Code of Practice recommends that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For some reason ParkingEye have deviated from the recommendation and made their Text both back on a grey background and also Grey on a light blue background making it much harder to read.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]The signs showing penalties and terms of conditions are printed using lettering that would be very difficult to read if the signs were at eye level. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There is a large block of tiny print at the foot of the ParkingEye signage that so small, I had difficulty reading it even after taking a photograph and enlarging it. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This problem is compounded since these signs are mounted very high up (Over 7 Ft) on poles such that they are not readable up close, as the viewing angle distorts their lettering. If the reader stands further away to mitigate the angle problem, the distance makes the text appear even smaller. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe that ParkingEye place their signs so high that the full terms would only be legible if a driver got out of a car and climbed a stepladder. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A customer distracted with thoughts of their of shopping visit in the retail park, may not even see the signs as their attention is likely to be at eye level looking for the quickest route to the door of their chosen retail establishment.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Two other problems also affect the possibility of whether a driver will even see the signs.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]a/ There are ornamental trees in the retail park that obscure the signs. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]b/ ParkingEye signs are just one of many pieces of information in the clutter of this busy customer car park[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There are a lot of signs for the retailers, there is a multitude of Graffiti and street art making the location very visually distracting. I do not believe Parking Eye’s signs to have been prominent enough to guarantee that they will be noticed, read and understood.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If ParkingEye wishes to argue my case, they ensure that they state the height of each sign in their response and to show contemporaneous photo evidence of these signs, without editing or cropping and showing where the signs are placed among the myriad of other information bombarding a customer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4) In the unlikely event that POPLA should Uphold that a contract exists, such a contract would be highly ambiguous, unfair and possibly illegal since some signage demands terms and conditions, that are impossible to uphold.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ambiguity:-[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There appear to be 3 different signs relating to parking and driving in the retail park [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are signs that read “Parking limited to two hours.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Also other signs that read “2hrs Maximum Stay”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The terms ‘stay’ and ‘parking’ do not appear to be clarified or defined on any sign so may, or may or not refer to the same event.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The signs do not rule out the possibility that there are granted “two hours for parking” and an additional “2 hours of stay”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Parking is a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]common word [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in the English language but has several meanings including:-

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“I’m just parking my car” where “parking” is a verb to manoeuvre a car. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I assume the driver managed to manoeuvre my car into a parking space in less than 2 hrs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If this is the definition that Parking Eye is using, then should prove this with video footage if it is available.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“We’ll park up for a couple of hours” this is using ‘parking’ as an adjective and is describing the past, current or future position or state of an object or vehicle. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When used as an adjective, one common usage is to refer to the period where the car is stationary and unoccupied. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example: The period in between loading and unloading or locking and unlocking the doors.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If this is the definition that ParkingEye wishes to use, their evidence should show the unoccupied vehicle in a parking space. Not whilst it is being driven in and out of the car park.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Since there is a variety of meanings that a driver could understand from the words “parking“ and / or “stay”, without further definition, it would be grossly unfair to use these terms in a contract without proper explanation.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not well versed in law, but a little reading suggests that; where ambiguity exists, the rule of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Contra Proferentem [/FONT][FONT=&quot]holds against the party that writes the contract[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Impossible contract condition:-[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]One of the terms on a sign suggests “Parents and toddlers only in marked bays”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and depicts an image as one might expect to find painted on the asphalt within the parking bay. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Equivalent to finding a depiction of a wheelchair image painted on the asphalt of a disabled parking bay.) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This term suggests that the driver (who is a parent and has young children) [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]is required to[/FONT] have found a bay marked specifically for the use of “Parents and toddlers” or been liable for a penalty. However, examination of the car park reveals a designated bay for a vet and some “disabled” bays but no “Parent and toddler” bays exist. Therefore, I suggest this term is impossible to comply with and must amount to a grossly unfair contract and may even be illegal.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5) The ANPR system is unreliable and neither synchronised nor accurate, and there is no evidence that this was just one visit[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Parking Eye's evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic before the driver has parked or even been in sight of any signs that show the terms and conditions. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The exit of the car park is situated within just a few car lengths of a very busy junction with traffic lights. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If the driver is turning right they can only leave the car park when the lights are green and: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] a/ there is a gap in the traffic [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b/ If another driver ‘generously gives them space’.

Unfortunately, at busy times, gaps are rare and cars that could ‘generously give space’ are unlikely to see a car waiting at the exit as it is partly obscured by a railway bridge. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Exiting this car park is notoriously difficult and a driver may be waiting for some time before being able to safely proceed. There is no evidence that the exit photo is not taken after a car has been in position at the exit for some time. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the entry camera, a reliable external clock or even to relate to the same parking event.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
As keeper I cannot discount that this may have been a double visit (possibly even with two drivers since the car has more than one family member who drives it). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA's view is[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: '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...'[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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. Or even an item temporarily obscuring the camera from picking up one car registration, such as a passing bird or wind-blown carrier bag or leaves appearing in front of the camera, even for moments, would stop a record appearing of a car leaving in between the stated times.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 I am wrong then they must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no more entries or exits that day by this car.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
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 ParkingEye 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. 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.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6) Unlawful Penalty Charge [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this “charge” is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge in lieu of a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), ParkingEye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012). The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.
I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]xxxxxxxxxx {registered keeper's name...}[/FONT]

Fruitcake

Typo in paragraph 3.


For some reason ParkingEye have deviated from the recommendation and made their Text both back on a grey background and also Grey on a light blue background making it much harder to read.


Do the signs define the word "toddler." (Age, height, weight, reading ability, shoe size?) If not, you should add that bit in.