Parking eye Help

tastycracker

reasons:
POPLA Code: XXXXXXXXXXX vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX PPC: parking eye ANPR PCN Ref: Alleged XXXXXXXXXXX Contravention Date & Time: 05/02/2015 at 13.29 Date of PCN: On 11/02/15 I was sent an invoice from Parking Eye ANPR as keeper of the above vehicle requiring payment of a charge of £90 for an alleged parking contravention.


I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: - The payment machine was out of order, No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant - No authority to levy charges - Lack of contract - Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss - Cameras No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Parking Eye ANPR, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Parking Eye ANPR or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


No authority to levy charges A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. The operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. The appellant believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Parking Eye ANPR to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices. When requested on appeal Parking Eye ANPR failed to provide a copy of the contract.


The appellant puts the operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and demands that the operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the operator. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.


No contract There was no contract between the driver and Parking Eye ANPR. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. And even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed. Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss The demand for £90 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it exceeds the BPA’s own Code of Practice.


The BPA Code of Practice states: 19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. 19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. Cameras Parking Eye ANPR are obliged to make sure their equipment is in working order and comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21.


The appellant required them to present evidence on whether the cameras were checked and maintained recently in relation to the date of the alleged incident, to ensure the accuracy of any Parking Eye ANPR images. They have failed to do so, although this is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) is also compliant with legal and BPA requirements and demand that they demonstrate adherence.


I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed The appellant requires Parking Eye ANPR to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.


POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

Umkomaas

You're going to have to edit the wall of text and break it up into readable appeal paragraphs please.

tastycracker

It was a car park on a retail park, first 45 minutes free, I tried to pay but the machine was out of order

Guys_Dad

WH letter says that the appeals they are dealing with have been logjammed because of the Beavis case and the fact that the lodged appeal was based on GPEOL. If you do nothing, there is a real danger that they will skim-read the original and reject the appeal on grounds of "No GPEOL".

Therefore you must get back to them, as invited, with all non-GPEOL points outlined again and they will read that appeal.

But in the case of Rachiebb77, concentrate on points 2 & 3 and make them tighter, referring them to the original as well.

tastycracker should number their points and lay them out better, removing the "I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed." from every point and putting it once at the end.

And forget Matthew Shaw of old POPLA.

tastycracker

reasons:
POPLA Code: XXXXXXXXXXX vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX PPC: parking eye ANPR PCN Ref: Alleged XXXXXXXXXXX Contravention Date & Time: 05/02/2015 at 13.29 Date of PCN: On 11/02/15 I was sent an invoice from Parking Eye ANPR as keeper of the above vehicle requiring payment of a charge of £90 for an alleged parking contravention.


I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: -


Firstly The payment machine was out of order & I was unable to pay.


No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant - No authority to levy charges - Lack of contract - Cameras No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Parking Eye ANPR, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Parking Eye ANPR or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.

No authority to levy charges A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. The operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. The appellant believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Parking Eye ANPR to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices. When requested on appeal Parking Eye ANPR failed to provide a copy of the contract.


The appellant puts the operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and demands that the operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the operator.

No contract There was no contract between the driver and Parking Eye ANPR. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. And even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.


The BPA Code of Practice states: 19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer. 19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable. Cameras Parking Eye ANPR are obliged to make sure their equipment is in working order and comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21.


The appellant required them to present evidence on whether the cameras were checked and maintained recently in relation to the date of the alleged incident, to ensure the accuracy of any Parking Eye ANPR images. They have failed to do so, although this is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) is also compliant with legal and BPA requirements and demand that they The appellant requires Parking Eye ANPR to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.

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

tastycracker

Is that version any better?

Ralph-y

there has been a second WH /POPLA thread today .......

so hold fire while the forum wise owls all have a look the different threads, and come up with a method of action ....

as stated this is relative new territory for appeals ,

it is quite likely that any appeal is pointless as WH are in bed with the PPC's ..... but lets wait and see....

good luck

Ralph:cool:

Umkomaas

As this is very new and forum strategy will be developing, it will be worth your while keeping an eye on other similar threads emerging on this forum and on PePiPoo.

Here are some links:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105274

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105269

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=105259

Umkomaas

And another with some sage advice from highly respected PePiPoo contributor Gan.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=97927&st=60&#entry1166408

Coupon-mad

tastycracker wrote: »

Is that version any better?

You haven't said whether you ever got an evidence pack by email or post from PE and what was missing when you checked it all against your appeal. i.e. you said 'no landowner authority' so they showed you...what? etc.

You will have realised from reading rachieb77's thread that the evidence pack is key as is your response now.

Already covered on her thread, plus lots of opinions on what to use in your response. Not legalese stuff either, very straightforward.

BUT DO NOT DROP THIS BALL THIS WEEK. GET THIS DRAFTED AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR EVIDENCE PACK (OR NONE)?