Think I've messed up parking eye

Kimberalex

Sorry I've copied and pasted a lot of it as I'm just so confused as what to write I'm at the point now just paying for someone to do it for me I've looked through so many forums including the newbies and parking cowboy and just getting incredibly confused by it all

Yes I appealed and stupidly admitted I was the driver I didn't find out I had done wrong until I found this website and your posts

Kimberalex

I'm really struggling as I've
-admitted I was the driver stupid I know but I panicked
-the reason I was the 14 minutes over because I was breastfeeding and can't find anything breastfeeding in the equal rights act
- I've been trawling hours of forums and it's all related to pay and display or nothing related to breastfeeding
- I used the ANPR from some forums and parking Cowboys
I'm so confused. There was signs showing in the entrance the time the signs are one up on a lamppost and the other on the wall as you walk in from the car park although I saw them (the terms and conditions are small) I can't argue them when the main factor is that I had to stay that 14 minutes extra to feed my baby.

Kimberalex

I'm so sorry coupon mad I must be doing your head in. So I apologize I've been scouring the forums and parking Cowboys breastfeeding rights Tex and composed this any help greatly appreciated

1.parking eye breach of the equal rights act 2010

2.contract with the landowner

3.ANPR accuracy

4.Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.


1)Equality act 2010

The driver of the car was a breastfeeding mother. Parking eye have been previously informed in the appeal that the driver was a breastfeeding mother due to baby needing nursing this caused the 14 minutes over stay.

In the 2010 equal rights act it states that breastfeeding is a protected characteristic, it is unlawful to discriminate or to harass anyone in the protected characteristic category. The nursing mother and baby we're not in a dangerous place, just in the car feeding.

The Equality Act says that it is sex discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding. It applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, further and higher education bodies and association. Service providers include most organisations that deal directly with the public. Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms.

Parking eye have been given the information in the appeal the driver was a breastfeeding mother and have still continued to harass the driver by sending parking fines. This will be taken further with breach of the equal rights act by home bargains and parking eye.

2. Contract with landowner - no locus standi

Smart parking do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Parking eye 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. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, unredacted contract, signed and dated with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). 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 CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye 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.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

So I require the contemporaneous contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between PEA and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...&alloworigin=1

I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."

The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term.

3)ANPR ACCURACY


This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to 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 to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as 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 the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: 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 this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

4) Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.

The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”

I have supplied photos that prove the sign in the entrance is not readable by a driver as it is at a junction entrance and cannot be read without causing traffic problems and the other sign displaying terms and conditions is high up on a lamppost.

This concludes my appeal

catfunt

That is looking a lot more like it!

Wait for further expert input though, but while we wait for that:-

Just a quick read and seen a few items to tidy up a little....

Just go through and check each instance of "Parking Eye" is capitalised as in the quotes.

Last paragraph in point 1 refers to fines... change that to "charges" also paragraph 2 "equal rights act" to "Equality Act"

Point 2 refers to Smart Parking, should be Parking Eye. also a later reference to PEA in the third paragraph of the same point, should be PE

Redx

change any instance of SMART or other operator to PARKING EYE or THE OPERATOR

like Smart in point 2)

always use EQUALITY ACT 2010, not equal rights act or other ambiguous terms

add a note about not a gpeol, bearing in mind new wording since the Beavis case, like explained in here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69629974#Comment_69629974 by coupon-mad , plus add one about the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (which replaced the UTCCR 1999 one as explained by coupon-mad earlier)

never mention the word "fines", its an invoice, a charge , nothing more, a speculative invoice is all it is, like a nigerian sc@m letter

ALWAYS add a point about the signage, as it has to conform to the BPA CoP , not your own definition

ALWAYS add a point about the grace periods (BPA CoP point #13) at the beginning and end of a parking period, as you have say 10 minutes to park and read the signage and pay etc , plus 11 minutes to "leave the site" at the end of the parking period

ANPR monitors time on site, not "parking periods"

query any and all legal points, they have to PROVE their case, you dont, so query EVERYTHING you possibly can

some PE examples are linked by coupon mad in that newbies sticky thread, so adapt points from those examples plus info she has given in threads like those below too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5370193

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5366286

Kimberalex

1.parking eye breach of the equal rights act 2010

2.Grace period

3. Contract with the landowner

4.ANPR accuracy

5,Signage and Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

6. Genuine pre-estimate of loss


1)Equality act 2010

The driver of the car was a breastfeeding mother. Parking eye have been previously informed in the appeal that the driver was a breastfeeding mother due to baby needing nursing this caused the 14 minutes over stay.

In the 2010 equality rights act it states that breastfeeding is a protected characteristic, it is unlawful to discriminate or to harass anyone in the protected characteristic category. The nursing mother and baby we're not in a dangerous place, just in the car feeding.

The Equality Act 2010 states that it is sex discrimination to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding. It applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, further and higher education bodies and association. Service providers include most organisations that deal directly with the public. Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding. Discrimination includes refusing to provide a service, providing a lower standard of service or providing a service on different terms.

Parking eye have been given the information in the appeal the driver was a breastfeeding mother and have still continued to harass the driver by sending parking invoices. This will be taken further with breach of the equality rights act 2010 by home bargains and parking eye.

2. Grace period

As stated in the BPA code of practice It clearly states:- 13 Grace periods

13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.



3.Contract with landowner - no locus standi

Parking eye do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Parking eye 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.

Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, unredacted contract, signed and dated with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists).

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 CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye 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.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.

So I require the contemporaneous contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between PEA and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...&alloworigin=1

I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.

It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."

The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."

In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term.

4)ANPR ACCURACY
APNR marks the time on site and not parking periods.

This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

I require the Operator to 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 to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as 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 the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: 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 this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

5) signage and Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.

Quote the BPA code of practice


18

18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.

18.2 entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore,
as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.

Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.

Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department forTransport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.
A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example:
• when there is no clearly defined car park entrance
• when the car park is very small
• at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling
stations
• at parking areas where general parking is not
permitted

I have supplied photos that prove the sign in the entrance is not readable by a driver as it is at a junction entrance, in a small carpark and cannot be read without causing extreme traffic problems and can also be dangerous it is also in a busy door entrance and fire exit to the store home bargains.

The other sign displaying terms and conditions is high up on a lamppost as shown in photographic evidence which both signs are completely intelligible and certainly not easy to read the terms and conditions without causing a possible accident, blockage of fire exit or block the walkway.

As shown in both photographs neither signs are lit.

I challenge parking eye to prove otherwise from these photos provided.

b) No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. In its parking charge notice, parking eye has failed to sufficient evidence to justify the £85 loss the landowner might have incurred for the 14 minutes the car was parked over the allocated time in its property which is a free car park for breastfeeding a baby. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Parking eye has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park, is required and should add up to £85. Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business should not be included in the breakdown of the costs, as these are part of the usual operational costs irrespective of any car being parked at that car park.



This concludes my appeal

Kimberalex

I will tidy up the grammar add the references sort the number points etc it's just a rough draft.

Also I read on another forum you now have to post your appeal to popla as it has changed to the ombudsman? Is this true?

Ralph-y

its still POPLA

it used to be London Councils ...

now its the Ombudsman service that handle such

merry xamas

and

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Kimberalex

Sorry I'm confused at the consumer rights act as I've looked through forums and legal documents and don't know how I can use it to help my case?

Quentin

In your original draft you (wrongly) used the 'Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999' (which have been replaced by the 2015 Consumer Rights Act).

4) Unreasonable/Unfair Terms.....

In your latest draft you look to have removed your appeal point on unfair terms