Think I've messed up parking eye

Kimberalex

1. EQUALITY 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. ParkingEye have been previously informed via appeal to ParkingEye that the driver was a breastfeeding mother due to baby needing nursing in the return period to the car.

In THE EQUALITY ACT 2010 it states that breastfeeding is a protected characteristic, it is unlawful to discriminate or to harass anyone in the protected. 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.

I would remind the POPLA assessor that POPLA is also a 'service provider' to the public and has broadly the same duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers as the Operator and landowner/occupier client. The Chief Adjudicator will no doubt be familiar with these regulations.

I am sure that all employees, including all POPLA Assessors, are informed of this act and know that they must demonstrate compliance when making decisions which affect disabled groups or individuals with protected characteristically

ParkingEye have been given the information in the appeal driver was a breastfeeding mother and have still continued to harass the driver by sending parking invoices.

This in addition to any grace periods that the parking operator must allow before and after the eventual taken place as in the British Parking Association's code of practice.

This will be taken further with the unlawful breach of the EQUALITY ACT 2010 by Home Bargains and ParkingEye.

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.


I would like to conclude that ParkingEye have no provided a grace period as stated in the British parking association's code of practice, allowing a grace period prior to parking for the driver to find a suitable space, of over 10 minutes as stated by the BPA to read the signage and decide if they do do wish to accept the terms and conditions.

Nor have they allowed a grace period on leaving the carpark of at least 11 minutes also as stated in the British Parking Association code of practice. Therefore I conclude that ParkingEye have not adhered to the British Parking Association code of practice of the grace period of a total of 21 minutes. Therefore the actual parking time should admit to 21 minutes less than what the ANPR cameras indicate on account of the ANPR only show time on site and not time parked.


3.Contract with landowner - no locus standi

ParkingEye do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. 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.

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 ParkingEye 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



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

Car park management procedure is solely through static ANPR cameras mounted at only the entrance and exit point.

In view of the matter they only cover entrance and exit points they cannot monitor the actual timing that the car was parked in an allocated parking space.

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.


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 placed upon the shop wall at junction entrance, in a small carpark and cannot be read without causing extreme traffic problems. Many would find this dangerous. It is allocated in a busy door entrance and fire exit to the store Home Bargains.

The other sign displaying terms and conditions which are in small print far too small to read, along with the daze up on a lamppost as shown in photographic evidence.
The other sign is placed in an entry/exit doorway of the home bargains store which both signs are completely intelligible and incredibly complicated to read the terms and conditions therefore a contract cannot be agreed to by the consumer if the terms and conditions are not intelligible, making it unwinding.


I challenge ParkingEye 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, ParkingEye fail to corroborate any loss much less than £85. They provide no valid evidence of any loss.

Only the landowner/ landholder would be 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.

When specified in point For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs ParkingEye has suffered as a result of the car being parked at the car park.


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've corrected unwinding to unbinding stupid autocorrect I can see the post much easier on here than in my notes to which in writing the draft.

Yes I have screen dumped some points from won cases, I'm not just fluking this I have spent many hours trawling, stressing re drafting and scouring the thesaurus for more appropriate words, while trying to look after 3 children

I am completely greatful to all your input just wanted to express I'm not being lazy and just screen dumping everything, sometimes I find it hard to find the words when I'm having my brain mushed by my 3 noisy kids ��

Kimberalex

I have until January 11th to submit it

Umkomaas

The other sign is placed in an entry/exit doorway of the home bargains store which both signs are completely intelligible and incredibly complicated to read the terms and conditions therefore a contract cannot be agreed to by the consumer if the terms and conditions are not intelligible, making it unwinding.

'Where' rather than 'which'?

Either 'unintelligible' or 'not intelligible' I think?

Coupon-mad

In this case, ParkingEye allege a 14 minute overstay, ignoring the mandatory 10 minutes prescribed in the BPA Code of Practice 13.4.

That's wrong and shoots you in the foot. We've already said there are two grace periods, an unspecified time before parking, and a mandatory eleven minutes after. So you need to tell POPLA exactly that, quote from the info supplied by IamEmanresu about the 11 minutes and mention the unspecified first grace period, too.

Fruitcake

This still needs a little work. The words in red or similar need adding.


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


and


I am sure that all employees, including all POPLA Assessors, are informed of this act and know that they must demonstrate compliance when making decisions which affect disabled groups or individuals with protected characteristically - should be characteristics.

Kimberalex

> Appeal against PCN no.123456789
> Veh. Reg.
> Date:
> Location:
>
To Whom It May Concern:

Please accept the following POPLA Appeal against the parking event cited above on the following grounds.

1. Breach of Equality Act 2010

2. Failure to observe MandatoryGrace period

3. No Valid Contract with the Landowner /Land-holder

4. ANPR accuracy

5.Non-compliant signage. Failure to adhere to BPA Code of Practice.

6. No genuine pre-estimate of loss

# In turn:

1. Breach of the equality act 2010

The driver of the car is a breastfeeding mother and, as such, in a protected category under the Equality Act 2010. ParkingEye were informed by an appeal email on the 26/11/2015 the driver was a breastfeeding mother.

Simply, baby needed nursing which caused this alleged 14-minute overstay.
The EQUALITY ACT 2010 states that breastfeeding is a protected characteristic. It is unlawful to discriminate or to harass anyone in a protected characteristic category. In this case, the nursing mother and baby were in a discreet area, a safe place, neither blocking, hindering or endangering any person or vehicle.

Baby was simply, quietly, feeding - exactly what the EQUALITY ACT 2010 is intended to protect.

It states that to treat a woman unfavourably because she is breastfeeding, is sex discrimination. It applies to anyone providing services, benefits, facilities and premises to the public, public bodies, Further and Higher Education bodies and associations. 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

Despite being informed that the driver was a breastfeeding mother, ParkingEye continue to harass the driver, insisting that their speculative invoice no.12345679for £85 must be paid.

The retailer and ParkingEye have both been put on notice that they are in breach of the EQUALITY ACT 2010, section 17.

I am sure that all employees, including all POPLA Assessors, are informed of this act and know that they must demonstrate compliance when making decisions which affect disabled groups or individuals with protected characteristics.


2. Permitted Grace Periods

The BPA Code of Practice requires that 2 periods of grace time must be allowed:
> [a] upon entry and
> upon exit.

It is wholly unreasonable and a breach of the CPUTRs (misleading action) for ParkingEye to ignore their own industry’s Code, which states:

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 allowed sufficient unspecified grace period prior to parking, therefore leaving no grace period to read signs.

ParkingEye have not allowed sufficient grace period at the end of time parked. Circumstance [breast-feeding] necessitated a 10-15 minute overstay and I put ParkingEye to strict proof of the contrary.

3.Contract with landowner - no locus standi

ParkingEye neither own, nor have any interest in, nor assignment of title to, the land in question. Therefore, ParkingEye lacks any legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver parking a vehicle in this ‘free’ 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 by the Landowner or landholder, not merely some signed slip of paper purporting to say that such a contract exists.

Some parking companies provide signed chits, termed “witness statements”, instead of the necessary relevant contract. These do not prove in any way, or degree, that an alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or is even a bonafide employee of the Landowner or landholder, let alone party to such a contract.

Such ‘’witness statements’’ do not reveal whether a payment has been made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any alleged 'loss' calculations. Nor do they show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, 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.

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.

ParkingEye must produce a full, unredacted and contemporaneous contract for all these stated reasons. I contend that this Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent.

I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between ParkingEye and their principal, 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[19 December 2013

4)ANPR ACCURACY

APNR marks the time on site, not parking periods.

Operators must 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 produces specific, relevant evidence in response to these points. ParkingEye must also explain to POPLA how its system differs, if at all, from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for their Court loss in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones [8 November, 2013.]

That case was dismissed when the Judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed', as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and ParkingEye could not rebut the point.

In addition to showing their maintenance records, I also challenge ParkingEye to rebut this point in relation to this parking event.

In the case of vehicle reg.xxxx in this car park on[date], 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: "live" is not really "live". 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 unreliable and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

5) Non-compliant Signage and Failure to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice.

ParkingEye signage does not meet the minimum requirements for compliance as laid down in part 18 of the Code:

‘’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 for Transport 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.’’

The attached contemporaneous photos prove that the sign in the entrance is not compliant,i.e. legible to a driver. Being at a junction entrance in a small carpark, it cannot be read without causing extreme traffic congestion. It is also very dangerously placed, being in a busy doorway entrance and Fire Exit of Home Bargains.

The other sign, displaying terms and conditions, is some 8 feet up on a lamp-post[see photo]. Both signs are completely unintelligible, due to non-compliant small type and dense, obtuse wording. Even with a step-ladder and/or torch, reading and absorbing this Operator’s Terms and Conditions is likely to cause an accident, illegal blockage of the Fire Exit, blockage of the walkway, or a combination of these.


Even one failure means that the conditions required by the BPA have not been met: this Operator fails multiply and completely.

I challenge ParkingEye to prove otherwise from the contemporaneous 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, ParkingEye failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify or substantiate an £85 loss to the landowner or landholder, incurred from an alleged 14-minute overstay.

The property is a so-called ‘free’ car park, without restriction, or exemption of its possible use by a breastfeeding mother and baby.

For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs ParkingEye 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. Thankyou for your attention.

Yours faithfully

ampersand

Very glad to see it arrived by other means K :-)
Still can't access mse via 'putah and no idea why "IP address is banned".
A couple of corrections which I'll em as b4.
Nearly there, promise-& :-)

Fruitcake

Kimberalax, you are a star of the first order. That is one of the best PoPLA appeals I have ever seen, (not that I am an expert mind .) One minor typo I picked up is in section 18.2 paragraph 5,


not compliant,i.e.


needs a space after the comma. Very picky I know but it is so good it would be a shame not to make it perfect. I can see this one being used an egg-sample to others. :T


Obviously don't forget to put the real PCN numbers etcetera in before you send it off.

salmosalaris

Strengthen with something like this possibly ?

The Appellant denies there was a breach of contract even if a contract ever existed which is denied.
The operator has provided no evidence whatsoever that the vehicle parked for longer than the maximum permissible time . They have simply provided two timings taken at arbitrary points on entry and exit of the car park . As the driver was not made aware of these timings or where they were being taken , it is impossible to rely on them as the start and finish times of any purported contract. The terms and conditions on the signage refer to parking contraventions within the bay , under the principle of contra preferentem it is reasonable for the driver to assume that the stay referred to on signage is the time occupying a bay . The driver does not believe that the bay was occupied for longer than the permissible time and puts the operator to strict proof that it was .
Such a contract would also be clearly unfair with reference to UTCCR 1999 as the terminology " max stay" is clearly ambiguous and the operator is operating without good faith to the detriment of the motorist by not making the driver fully aware of the start and finish times of the purported contract that they were purportedly bound by.
Reliance by the operator on grace periods is a meaningless , inaccurate and crude attempt to pay lip service to this obvious discrepancy.