Think I've messed up parking eye

Kimberalex

Parking eye have not given a 10 minute grace period on the end of the time parked, the 14 minutes over constitutes of said baby being nursed and medication 4 minutes over because a small child cannot be dictated to to stop feeding.

Does that sound ok in the section relating to "grace periods"

Coupon-mad

Make sure you have 'the Equality Act 2010' not the 'equal rights act 2010' which doesn't exist.

Grace periods, search the forum for those words and you will see examples this week quoting the rules (NOT LAW) under the BPA CoP which in fact require two grace periods, one at the start when the car arrives, for the driver to read signs & park & decide whether to stay - and a second one after parking, which MUST be a minimum of 11 minutes, now.

Do that search, 'grace periods' and you will find examples from recent days that you can copy. Then show us your final draft making sure you still have the unfair terms stuff in, but citing the Consumer Rights Act, not the older UTCCRs.

Kimberalex

1.EA10

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)EA2010

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 EQUALITY RIGHTS ACT 2010 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

The BPA Code of Practice requires that additional time upon entry and further time upon exit, is to be allowed. It is wholly unreasonable and a breach of the CPUTRs (misleading action) for ParkingEye to ignore their industry code, which states re 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.


Parking eye have not given a grace period on the end of the time parked, which I believe would be between 10 or 15 minutes and put parking eye to provide strict proof of the contrary





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.

The terms and conditions are in small print completely intelligible 7/8ft up a lamppost or in a shop doorway/fire exit. As a result these conditions stated by the BPA have not been met.

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

5)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

Yours faithfully


I've scoured the forums and online and can't find a thing with up to date consumer rights act in relation to parking charges

Redx

one or two mistakes

5) not a gpeol should be 6) not a gpeol for starters

looking good now though, although I think more tweaks will be forthcoming

ampersand

Hello K, 1st thing - I do not see ANY mention of reply from Home Bargains to that 2nd complaint letter.
I'd be pressing that button, hinting at bad publicity in local papers etc.

Next, correct that 1st mention of the EQUALITY ACT 2010 [no such beast as Equality Rights Act] Use that full term every time, no EA2010 abbreviation.

I like CAB's wording, which spells out simply the applications and implications of the Act. Look here:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination/

Note well the section containing: The Equality Act 2010 calls this pregnancy and maternity discrimination.
CAB have often given competely incorrect pcn advice, even 'pay up', but here they write simply and well. Quote 1 or 2 salient sections.
#
It's 'ParkingEye' - not 2 words, exactly like that. Just ccpy it every time.
Replace every single 'Parking eye' - none are correct.
#
Upper Case Bold for each no.'d rebuttal point. Good setting out is essential. This also means breaking chunks of text into paras.
#
This sentence loses it way entirely -

In its parking charge notice, parking eye has failed to [verb missing]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.

As written, it reads that this Car park's purpose was breastfeeding a baby. Punctuation and grammar really matter. Keep points punchy. Make statements, not suggestions. These are the ground rules for this type of formal writing. It carries weight. Make the Assessor your friend, is a maxim here:-)

Try something like:

ParkingEye fail to substantiate any loss, much less £85. They provide no valid evidence of any loss at all. Only a Landowner/Landholder would be so entitled, and only then were the driver not in a protected category as per the Equality Act 2010.

The driver, as a breast-feeding mother, is in a protected category, as defined in Section 17 of that Act. This is the applicable circumstance which lead to 4 minutes' alleged overstay.
In this case, ParkingEye allege a 14 minute overstay, ignoring the mandatory 10 minutes prescribed in the BPA Code of Practice 13.4.
To reiterate, any penalty a landowner or landholder- ParkingEye are neither - might seek in a 'free car park', would still fail against a mother breastfeeding her baby.
#
Started to sort this out over an hour ago, but have now doc'd it to overhaul offline. Too many little errors to fiddle with piecemeal.

Even then, you need to hope c-m, Redx and others can check it all thoroughly again. I am just doing the forensics on #64 as it appears.

Back in a while :-)

Coupon-mad

I've scoured the forums and online and can't find a thing with up to date consumer rights act in relation to parking charges.

That's because it doesn't specifically relate only to parking charges. Nor did the UTCCRs.

This is legislation about unfair terms in any consumer contracts (such as a parking charge). And the UTCCRs was superseded by the (stronger) Consumer Rights Act in October so it's important to cite the correct Act.

Kimberalex

ampersand wrote: »

Hello K, 1st thing - I do not see ANY mention of reply from Home Bargains to that 2nd complaint letter.
I'd be pressing that button, hinting at bad publicity in local papers etc.

Next, correct that 1st mention of the EQUALITY ACT 2010 [no such beast as Equality Rights Act] Use that full term every time, no EA2010 abbreviation.

I like CAB's wording, which spells out simply the applications and implications of the Act. Look here:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/what-are-the-different-types-of-discrimination/pregnancy-and-maternity-discrimination/

Note well the section containing: The Equality Act 2010 calls this pregnancy and maternity discrimination.
CAB have often given competely incorrect pcn advice, even 'pay up', but here they write simply and well. Quote 1 or 2 salient sections.
#
It's 'ParkingEye' - not 2 words, exactly like that. Just ccpy it every time.
Replace every single 'Parking eye' - none are correct.
#
Upper Case Bold for each no.'d rebuttal point. Good setting out is essential. This also means breaking chunks of text into paras.
#
This sentence loses it way entirely -

In its parking charge notice, parking eye has failed to [verb missing]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.

As written, it reads that this Car park's purpose was breastfeeding a baby. Punctuation and grammar really matter. Keep points punchy. Make statements, not suggestions. These are the ground rules for this type of formal writing. It carries weight. Make the Assessor your friend, is a maxim here:-)

Try something like:

ParkingEye fail to substantiate any loss, much less £85. They provide no valid evidence of any loss at all. Only a Landowner/Landholder would be so entitled, and only then were the driver not in a protected category as per the Equality Act 2010.

The driver, as a breast-feeding mother, is in a protected category, as defined in Section 17 of that Act. This is the applicable circumstance which lead to 4 minutes' alleged overstay.
In this case, ParkingEye allege a 14 minute overstay, ignoring the mandatory 10 minutes prescribed in the BPA Code of Practice 13.4.
To reiterate, any penalty a landowner or landholder- ParkingEye are neither - might seek in a 'free car park', would still fail against a mother breastfeeding her baby.
#
Started to sort this out over an hour ago, but have now doc'd it to overhaul offline. Too many little errors to fiddle with piecemeal.

Even then, you need to hope c-m, Redx and others can check it all thoroughly again. I am just doing the forensics on #64 as it appears.

Back in a while :-)

Thank for being so helpful I will go through and really try and neaten it up I'm awful with grammar, I think all my brain cells go out through my milk.

Kimberalex

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's because it doesn't specifically relate only to parking charges. Nor did the UTCCRs.

This is legislation about unfair terms in any consumer contracts (such as a parking charge). And the UTCCRs was superseded by the (stronger) Consumer Rights Act in October so it's important to cite the correct Act.

I really appreciate it thank you I'm going to have a good look now and add it into this appeal

Kimberalex

y (Home Bargains Support)
18 Dec, 15:59

Thank you for your response.

If you are unhappy with the outcome, you can contact us via the following address, and we will look into the matter with Parking Eye:

Parking Appeals
TJ Morris Ltd
Portal Way
Liverpool
L11 0JA
This car park is operated by Parking Eye, and we have no control over who tickets are issued to, nor do we receive any money from the tickets.

I'm sorry that we are unable to help any more with this matter.

Kind regards,
Hayley

This is the response from
The second email I have since sent another questioning if they are denying they employ ParkingEye as an agent they have not replied. I've got on Twitter and Facebook to which they deleted it

Kimberalex

2.29 Businesses need to take particular care in communicating key terms to consumers who may have greater difficulty than others in collecting, processing and acting upon information and thus in exercising choice effectively. These consumers may include, for example, young consumers (who lack the benefit of experience), some older consumers (studies show that some mental capacities decline with age) and consumers who in circumstances that leave them short of time or inclined to be distracted (for example, new parents or the recently bereaved). Some consumers in categories such as these may especially favour immediacy rather than reflecting on all aspects of their purchasing decisions. Consumers may also be vulnerable in the context of specific transactions, for example when they make infrequent or expensive purchases.

Could this section be used? I was a new parent and very distracted.