Parking Appeal refused

galaxyS7

Please help, I was issued with a ticket from Parking Eye for entering their car park and leaving after 13 minutes and in that time I was trying to purchase a ticket and also downloading an app to make the payments as I didn't have sufficient funds. I sent an appeal which they have refused and now I have to appeal to popla. is it fair as i clearly didn't leave the car unattended during this time and have clearly informed them in the appeal. I wasn't aware that getting into the parking lot would end me with a fine. Please help:money:.

pogofish

Please start by carefully reading the Newbies Sticky at the top of this forum.

This will straighten you out on the current situation and your optons for seeing them-off. Which by now, seeing as you have made the mistake of appealing to them (and almost every other mistake possible) will mean either a solid POPLA appeal or a cancellation via the landowner.

The_Deep

You have not been fined, they have sent you an invoice for unperformed services. By refusing your appeal they have compounded their unreasonable behaviour, and you can now take the offensive.


Write to them stating that, unless they cancel the invoice immediately, you will be billing them for your time spent on dealing with the matter. Failure to pay may result in court action to recover your costs.


Given the threadbare nature of their claim, they would be foolish proceed with this.

Fruitcake

If you appealed as driver then you have given away a very valuably appeal point. If you only appealed as keeper hen you are in better shape to beat this.

Start by reading the most recent PoPLA wins in the POPLA Decisions Sticky thread along with Post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

Post your draft up here when you are ready.

You should be appealing on at least, not the landowner, no authority to issue charges in their own name, inadequate signage, ANPR inaccuracy and not stating for what the data will be used (BPA and ICO breach), non compliant NTK (but only if you didn't tell them who was driving) and lack of grace periods. Other appeal points are available.

Half_way

who's car park was it?

Coupon-mad

galaxyS7 wrote: »

Please help, I was issued with a ticket from Parking Eye for entering their car park and leaving after 13 minutes and in that time I was trying to purchase a ticket and also downloading an app to make the payments as I didn't have sufficient funds. I sent an appeal which they have refused and now I have to appeal to popla. is it fair as i clearly didn't leave the car unattended during this time and have clearly informed them in the appeal. I wasn't aware that getting into the parking lot would end me with a fine. Please help:money:.

The Grace periods section of the BPA Code of Practice (Google it and read it) will be your first appeal point.

Read other POPLA appeals from recent weeks by searching 'POPLA grace periods' on this sub-fourm and ONLY reading examples from 2016, not any older.

Show us your draft appeal based on 2016 ones you find. NOTHING about 'no loss' please.

Doesn't matter that you named the driver really, you'll win this on 'no Grace Periods' if you spell it out to the bright young things at POPLA who need it drummed into them why appellants have a case. You can also state that you took every possible step to make payment and left when you could not accept the contract, all within the applicable grace periods allowed. What you did was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances and not a breach of contract at all.

Also have 'no landowner authority' and a paragraph about the Beavis case, setting out how a P&D car park differs from the Supreme Court judgment - if you don't see this in a POPLA appeal you are looking at an old one before 2016. Don't read them, it will confuse you, read new ones here by searching.

galaxyS7

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The Grace periods section of the BPA Code of Practice (Google it and read it) will be your first appeal point.

Read other POPLA appeals from recent weeks by searching 'POPLA grace periods' on this sub-fourm and ONLY reading examples from 2016, not any older.

Show us your draft appeal based on 2016 ones you find. NOTHING about 'no loss' please.

Doesn't matter that you named the driver really, you'll win this on 'no Grace Periods' if you spell it out to the bright young things at POPLA who need it drummed into them why appellants have a case. You can also state that you took every possible step to make payment and left when you could not accept the contract, all within the applicable grace periods allowed. What you did was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances and not a breach of contract at all.

Also have 'no landowner authority' and a paragraph about the Beavis case, setting out how a P&D car park differs from the Supreme Court judgment - if you don't see this in a POPLA appeal you are looking at an old one before 2016. Don't read them, it will confuse you, read new ones here by searching.

APPEAL RE: Parking Eye CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK: VEHICLE REG:
POPLA APPEAL CODE:

I was the driver of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the parking charge. I took every possible step to make payment and left when I could not accept the contract, all within the applicable grace periods allowed. What I did was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances and not a breach of the contract at all. I believe that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that all these points be considered.

1. Parking Eye never supplied the necessary documents to comply with POFA 2012 so therefore failed to meet the requirements to invoke keeper liability. The use of ANPR data must be displayed on the signs in accordance with ICO regulations. Basically, the signs have to tell the motorist what the data will be used for, and of course this was not available.

2..The Car Park had Confusing Unclear ambiguous inadequate signage not compliant with the BPA Standards creating unreasonable and unfair terms with no valid contract formed with Parking Eye and therefore no agreement to pay £100

I believe the signs that Parking Eye are relying on were confusing and the small print too small for anyone to see read or understand whilst in this car park. The signs appeared to fail in that they did not properly and clearly warn and inform the terms of this car park correctly and as such failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. as follows:

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.

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate sign-age on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

3. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss The amount is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified
This was no agreed contract and the sum is unfair, unreasonable and unrecoverable.
This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgement .The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate.

This charge is for an alleged breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified, that Parking Eye who are the non-land-owning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages.
Unlike in Beavis, it is argued that this charge has been artificially inflated and Parking Eye have failed to disengage the 'penalty rule' by virtue of a want of good faith and also a failure in their duty to deal fairly with consumers and a failure to follow the requirements of their industry’s Code of Practice. £100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff. Parking Eye cannot justify how an alleged 25 minutes over-stay in a FREE 3-hour car park incurred a loss of £100. They have failed to justify and supply sufficient evidence to justify this cost because of the plain fact that it is unjustifiable; it is an arbitrary figure that they have invented, and there is no commercial justification as the landholder has no incentive to maintain turnover of spaces at that location. As such it is an unenforceable penalty. Once again Beavis cannot apply in this location.
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. An Operator cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has lost as a result of the car being parked at the car park, is required and should add up to £100. 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.
AND any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility. As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.
Case: As this was a Paying car park, the Notice to Keeper has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed.
On the Notice to Keeper it only states that the car was in the car park for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was an overstay or failure to pay.
Also there is no commercial justification to ensure traffic turnover on the site as a motorist can stay longer in the car park if required and in fact can stay all day and night if they wish by paying £10.
4. Parking Eye have no Standing or Authority to form parking contracts or enforce them in court in their own name
Parking Eye have no authority to issue parking contracts nor to pursue to court, as required in the BPA code of practice. The Parking Eye Contract should be with the Landowner and not a company leasing the land.
As Parking Eye do not own the Car Park and are not the landowners please ask Parking Eye to provide a contemporaneous and unreduced copy of their contract with the landholder which would then demonstrate that Parking Eye have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in their own name or on behalf of the landowner who can then support their claim. I dispute they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising. Any loss is to the landowner and only they can bring action.
I believe that Parking Eye have no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, or to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such Parking Eye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing or authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore would ask that Parking Eye provide proof to POPLA and myself with an unredacted contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Eye and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye.

5. Very Poor Quality Unclear photographic and ANPR evidence
I refer to Section 20, Paragraph 5 (S20P5) of the British Parking Association Code of Practice:
“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”
TPS appear to have provided supplementary evidence in their rebuttal to support the claim that a car with the registration [REDACTED] entered the car park, specifically Section F, Page 2, this evidence is insufficient and ambiguous as it does not establish be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

The photograph used and provided on the Parking Charge Notice supposedly showing the Departure time is completely black and although it may show numbers and letters on the photograph it is unrecognisable as a vehicle and can therefore not be used as evidence as not “clear and legible” and cannot be used in any claim by Parking Eye.

6.
Time in the Car Park is not a period of Parking.
The motorist must be given time to park and read the signs and find a ticket machine and have time to leave the site at the end of parking .
And also search for a member of the Parking Team to enquire about anything that is confusing about the sign.

Therefore it is not indicative of the time entering the car park and cannot be used as accurate reference as does not state when the free period ends o very misleading and confusing once again. Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains. This is what I did.
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Also the small print on the machines take ages to read and a person may even need to then go back to collect glasses from their car as the print is so tiny.
The British Parking Association Code of Practice states the motorist must be given time to read the signs and time to leave the site at end of parking. The grace period can be an arbitrary number as in certain cases this can take longer depending on the circumstances for example in this car park there are only two ticket machines so you could wait just to put their number in a ticket machine to receive a ticket that is useless and most people throw away.

Time in car park?
Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of POFA stipulates This is a mandatory piece of information which should be included in the Notice to Hirer/Keeper

On the basis of all the points I have raised the parking charge notice fails to meet standards set in the British Parking Association Code of Practice .I reject the charge and would appreciate that you review all my points and allow the appeal.


Please advice what i need to remove and add if anything. Many thanks to everyone
.

Herzlos

You can't say you were the driver and then claim no keeper liability, as they don't need it.

Re-write your appeal to be from the keepers POV, i.e.

I was the keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the parking charge. The driver took every possible step to make payment and left when they could not accept the contract, all within the applicable grace periods allowed. What they did was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances and not a breach of the contract at all. I believe that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that all these points be considered.

Ralph-y

as Half_way said

who's car park was it ?

Ralph:cool:

galaxyS7

APPEAL RE: Parking Eye CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK: VEHICLE REG:
POPLA APPEAL CODE:

I was the driver of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the parking charge. I took every possible step to make payment and left when I could not accept the contract, all within the applicable grace periods allowed. What I did was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances and not a breach of the contract at all. I believe that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that all these points be considered.

1. Grace Period
Time in the Car Park is not a period of Parking.
The motorist must be given time to park and read the signs and find a ticket machine and have time to leave the site at the end of parking .
And also search for a member of the Parking Team to enquire about anything that is confusing about the sign.
Therefore it is not indicative of the time entering the car park and cannot be used as accurate reference as does not state when the free period ends o very misleading and confusing once again. Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA) says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.
“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains. This is what I did.
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Also the small print on the machines take ages to read and a person may even need to then go back to collect glasses from their car as the print is so tiny.
The British Parking Association Code of Practice states the motorist must be given time to read the signs and time to leave the site at end of parking. The grace period can be an arbitrary number as in certain cases this can take longer depending on the circumstances for example in this car park there are only two ticket machines so you could wait just to put their number in a ticket machine to receive a ticket that is useless and most people throw away.
Parking Eye never supplied the necessary documents to comply with POFA 2012 so therefore failed to meet the requirements to invoke keeper liability. The use of ANPR data must be displayed on the signs in accordance with ICO regulations. Basically, the signs have to tell the motorist what the data will be used for, and of course this was not available.

2..The Car Park had Confusing Unclear ambiguous inadequate signage not compliant with the BPA Standards creating unreasonable and unfair terms with no valid contract formed with Parking Eye and therefore no agreement to pay £100

I believe the signs that Parking Eye are relying on were confusing and the small print too small for anyone to see read or understand whilst in this car park. The signs appeared to fail in that they did not properly and clearly warn and inform the terms of this car park correctly and as such failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Part 18 appendix B. as follows:

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.

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate sign-age on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.

3. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss The amount is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified
This was no agreed contract and the sum is unfair, unreasonable and unrecoverable.
This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgement .The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate.

This charge is for an alleged breach of contract and therefore it must either be based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise shown to be socially or commercially justified, that Parking Eye who are the non-land-owning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages.
Unlike in Beavis, it is argued that this charge has been artificially inflated and Parking Eye have failed to disengage the 'penalty rule' by virtue of a want of good faith and also a failure in their duty to deal fairly with consumers and a failure to follow the requirements of their industry’s Code of Practice. £100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff. Parking Eye cannot justify how an alleged 25 minutes over-stay in a FREE 3-hour car park incurred a loss of £100. They have failed to justify and supply sufficient evidence to justify this cost because of the plain fact that it is unjustifiable; it is an arbitrary figure that they have invented, and there is no commercial justification as the landholder has no incentive to maintain turnover of spaces at that location. As such it is an unenforceable penalty. Once again Beavis cannot apply in this location.
The charge is unconscionable and extravagant and unrelated to local Penalty Charge levels in this area. An Operator cannot include 'staff time spent on appeals' and other tax deductible business costs such as administration, accounting & equipment. For this charge to be justified, a full breakdown of the costs Parking Eye has lost as a result of the car being parked at the car park, is required and should add up to £100. 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.
AND any reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis case was based on the use of that particular car park which was free and the charge should also be disregarded as the judgment simply reaffirms that the decision in justified to ensure motorists left within 2 hours for the good of all other drivers and the facility. As previously mentioned in this situation there is no such justification.
Case: As this was a Paying car park, the Notice to Keeper has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to this timeline stated in Schedule 4, these 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed.
On the Notice to Keeper it only states that the car was in the car park for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was an overstay or failure to pay.
Also there is no commercial justification to ensure traffic turnover on the site as a motorist can stay longer in the car park if required and in fact can stay all day and night if they wish by paying £10.
4. Parking Eye have no Standing or Authority to form parking contracts or enforce them in court in their own name
Parking Eye have no authority to issue parking contracts nor to pursue to court, as required in the BPA code of practice. The Parking Eye Contract should be with the Landowner and not a company leasing the land.
As Parking Eye do not own the Car Park and are not the landowners please ask Parking Eye to provide a contemporaneous and unreduced copy of their contract with the landholder which would then demonstrate that Parking Eye have the authority of the landowner to both issue parking charges and legislate in their own name or on behalf of the landowner who can then support their claim. I dispute they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising. Any loss is to the landowner and only they can bring action.
I believe that Parking Eye have no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, or to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such Parking Eye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing or authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore would ask that Parking Eye provide proof to POPLA and myself with an unredacted contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Eye and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye.

5. Very Poor Quality Unclear photographic and ANPR evidence
I refer to Section 20, Paragraph 5 (S20P5) of the British Parking Association Code of Practice:
“When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”
TPS appear to have provided supplementary evidence in their rebuttal to support the claim that a car with the registration [REDACTED] entered the car park, specifically Section F, Page 2, this evidence is insufficient and ambiguous as it does not establish be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.”

The photograph used and provided on the Parking Charge Notice supposedly showing the Departure time is completely black and although it may show numbers and letters on the photograph it is unrecognisable as a vehicle and can therefore not be used as evidence as not “clear and legible” and cannot be used in any claim by Parking Eye.

6.
Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of POFA stipulates This is a mandatory piece of information which should be included in the Notice to Hirer/Keeper

On the basis of all the points I have raised the parking charge notice fails to meet standards set in the British Parking Association Code of Practice .I reject the charge and would appreciate that you review all my points and allow the appeal.

galaxyS7

Its just a car park managed by Parking Eye.