ParkingEye - Fined despite paying

sa22ie

Hey guys,

It's slow progress but I have received an evidence pack from ParkingEye and POPLA have informed me I have 7 days to respond/add to my position. Is it usual that people add more at this stage or should I leave it?

Cheers

sa22ie

The Evidence pack is consistent with the points I've raised in my original letter but I've summarised a few points below:

• The Evidence pack doesn't contain a copy of the contract that says they manage the land. Instead they've said "ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent)."
• It demonstrates that I paid for my parking 11 minutes after I arrived on the land and I left 1 minutes after the ticket expired. Consistent with my story of the signage being confusing for parking tariff after 6pm and time to load the vehicle to depart.
• They've included images of the signage which gives no clear tariff after 6pm "Up to 14 hours £5.50" When times before 6pm are detailed by the hour on weekdays.
• Their signage plan in terribly unclear and I'm pretty sure in some places inaccurate as well as being consistent with my point about signage being way up on pole not easy to read in he dark.

There is one small concern around the driver/owner who holds the contract, they've said: "It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract."

Should I be concerned about this?

Thanks again for your help guys :beer:

nigelbb

sa22ie wrote: »

• The Evidence pack doesn't contain a copy of the contract that says they manage the land. Instead they've said "ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

If they have not produced a contract nor even a witness statement from the landowner or their agent then they have produced no evidence that they have authority. You should highlight their failure to produce evidence as proof that they have no authority.

I have skimmed through the thread but don't think that you answered this or put it in your appeal.

You have not mentioned that parking lie didn't meet the requirements of POFA 2012 with regards to a notice to hirer/lessee. Did they send you a copy of the hire agreement and original PCN? If not, those are the points you should be using, not the ones you have used.

If Parking Eye are claiming that you are liable as you are leasing the car then without the additional documents their case fails. If you haven't already stated this then do it now as 'Not a valid Notice to Hirer' is a a simple one point appeal that you would have won on without bothering with all the other arguments. Parking Eye never send a valid Notice to Hirer.

catfunt

nigelbb wrote: »

If they have not produced a contract nor even a witness statement from the landowner or their agent then they have produced no evidence that they have authority. You should highlight their failure to produce evidence as proof that they have no authority.

I have skimmed through the thread but don't think that you answered this or put it in your appeal.

If Parking Eye are claiming that you are liable as you are leasing the car then without the additional documents their case fails. If you haven't already stated this then do it now as 'Not a valid Notice to Hirer' is a a simple one point appeal that you would have won on without bothering with all the other arguments. Parking Eye never send a valid Notice to Hirer.

This.

Important you include this - should be a slam dunk.

Also take careful note of the issues surrounding sending rebuttals via email rather than using tyhe online form. There have been recent issues with rebuttals being ignored/not read.

Also a good idea to post your rebuttal on here for critique before sending it.

sa22ie

Hey guys - had a go at drafting a response to the PE evidence pack. Any thoughts?


Please see below my response to the ParkingEye evidence pack received on [DATE].

I rebut the evidence supplied under Section B – Authority, Section B – Further Information, as well as identifying discrepancies in Section F and failure to comply with POFA 2012.

Section B – Authority.
No evidence was supplied by way of a contract with the landowner as requested that shows ParkingEye has consent from the landowner to enforce terms of use on the land. I suspect that ParkingEye may be attempting to enforce fines without the proper permission and therefore put them to strict proof that such a contract exists between them and the landowner.

Section B – Further Information.
Their claims the signage is “clear” in Section B – Further Information this demonstrated in Section F in their site map which is extremely difficult to interpret, surely adding weight to the argument that they are not making their terms or their signage clear.

After much consideration I can see from their site map there are apparently 7 signs around the entrance/exit area of the car park cluttering the drivers view of what they should consider in order to make sense of the ‘contract’ they are entering into by using the land. Identifying the right information, on the right sign, relevant to the time and day you are using the facilities would indeed take time. As mentioned in my POPLA appeal, consider the difficulty someone with a common learning difficulty such as dyslexia may have when trying to decipher such a volume of confusing information (1 in 10 people in the UK suffer with dyslexia this is potentially 10 Aire St Car Park customers daily based on the car parks capacity).

There is also a discrepancy in ParkingEye’s claim that there are only 3 styles of sign used in the car park. If you look closely at the image on page 36 you can make out two other signs to the right of the entrance that are different, both to each other, and to the 3 illustrated in their evidence pack. These are at the point the ANPR takes the photograph giving you no time to read these extra signs.

The “signs at the entrance on the illuminated road” (as mentioned in Sections B – Further Information) are on double yellow lines (as seen on page 36). The car park is approximately 60 meters from the entrance of Leeds train station, which sees around 30million passengers each year making that road extremely busy, especially during rush hours (4:30-6:30). It is not safe to stop on the approach to the car park to read the signs, therefore ParkingEye has to make reasonable allowances for users to enter the car park gather the required information from all the 5 different styles of signs crowded around and decide if they are going to stay. In this section ParkingEye suggests they do have a “grace period” for such, however they haven’t suggested the length of this period, therefore how can anyone judge if this is fair and reasonable for this purpose and the purpose covered in my POPLA appeal for loading the vehicle leaving the car park.

Furthermore out of the 15 signs in the car park, not one of them gives a clear indication of parking tariff after 6pm, which was the relevant information the driver was after on the evening in question. There are hour by hour charges 8am-6pm displayed but only an “Overnight” parking tariff which doesn’t clearly list what tariff to expect if you are not staying overnight or “up to 14 hours”. Confusion is heightened by the prompt that ‘night time tickets expire at 8am’. It’s not even clear if you can use the car park for short stay after 6pm. The driver found this extremely confusing amongst all the other signage and therefore asked the guidance of another car park user and a nearby establishment, attempting to fulfill their duty of understanding what the terms were of the car park. You can see how this adds to the time taken to purchase the ticket in the first instance. In the end the driver relied upon the time indicated on the parking ticket once money had been inserted into the machine. Surely the driver cannot be held to a contract other than that which was on their ticket.

Under the same section ParkingEye said:
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions"
I dispute that this is barely readable by zooming in on the evidence pack provided and certainly wouldn’t be readable in the dark for someone tiptoeing at the sign above the parking meter or kneeling on the pavement on the road outside.
In Section G you can see that the driver left the car park just 2 minutes after the P&D ticket expired which should account for time to load up, belt up and prepare for the journey, maneuver out of their space and leave the car park.

POFA 2012
Further to all this under POFA 2012 ParkingEye are required to provide evidence of the Hire/Lessee agreement along with the original PCN, which is not present in their evidence pack nor was it presented to me as the hirer/lessee at the time of issue of the PCN.

Here concludes my response the PE's evidence.

nigelbb

You really need to big up the point that no valid Notice to Hirer was delivered & make it point Number One or it will get lost amongst all the other waffle about signs etc. This is the single point that kills stone dead any claim that Parking Eye have. Whether signage is adequate is all a matter of opinion whereas not sending a valid NTH is the law.

TDA

Can you confirm whether the car is yours or subject to a hire agreement. There are different provisions for vehicles on hire and I would bet there's a good chance that the hire company haven't complied with the very strict requirements for what the statement of liability in the hire agreement needs to contain.

Coupon-mad

nigelbb wrote: »

You really need to big up the point that no valid Notice to Hirer was delivered & make it point Number One or it will get lost amongst all the other waffle about signs etc. This is the single point that kills stone dead any claim that Parking Eye have. Whether signage is adequate is all a matter of opinion whereas not sending a valid NTH is the law.

Yep - sa22ie, make it point #1 and I've swapped the words around a bit to make it clear to POPLA it's not the actual PCN that you are saying is missing:

POFA 2012 paragraph 13/14 - failure to supply hire documents with the PCN
Further to all this, under POFA 2012 paragraphs 13/14, ParkingEye are required to provide with the PCN sent to a hirer/lessee, a copy of the Hire/Lessee agreement. This is not present in their evidence pack nor was it presented to me as the hirer/lessee at the time of issue of the PCN. The driver has never been identified so I cannot be held liable in law.

sa22ie

Hi all - just to update you on my appeal.

We (with help from you all) have successfully turned around this PCN! :T :rotfl: :beer:

I didn't submit any counter to the evidence that PE sent, I missed the deadline but they appealed it anyway. Let me know if it's worth posting what they wrote in their summary.

Massive thanks again to everyone who helped me navigate this crazy thing!

Sarah

Ralph-y

well done ....:j

was this a POPLA appeal cancellation ?

as in you won the appeal

or ParlingLie withdrew ?

Ralph:cool: