Parking Eye Popla Apeal Help

surveyor_101

PE have put their file in no case summary or copy received. How do I apply for an extension to the 7 days?

How best to contact PE for a copy of the evidence.

Castle

surveyor_101 wrote: »

PE have put their file in no case summary or copy received. How do I apply for an extension to the 7 days?

How best to contact PE for a copy of the evidence.

Contact POPLA
http://popla.co.uk/help-with-your-appeal

surveyor_101

Emailed PPE asking for our copy

Emailed BPA complaining of breach>

[FONT=&quot]I also note that it is a breach of Paragraph 22.16c of the BPA Code of Practice i.e. it is a clear requirement of POPLA that evidence packs are sent to the appellant at the same time as they are sent to POPLA. Failure to do this will be considered a Sanctionable Breach of the Code.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And finally emailed POPLA pointing out the breach and asking for an extension.
[/FONT]

bod1467

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5458007

Does this POPLA appeal relate to that thread?

surveyor_101

Got the file emailed from POPLA

land contract is unreadable but dated 20/05/2015 signed by P Boynes??

It takes of a 1/2/3 hour tariff since 1st March 2016 they have planning permission to have 5 hour stay at no less than £25.

There short term carpark planning permission elasped 16/01/16.

surveyor_101

link to pdf of appeal with detail blanked out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbzn9jwc4tnfois/Parking%20Eye.pdf?dl=0

Can I just state their planning permission does not support their signage?

My company sec may have muddy the waters with his admital our guy stopped to read the map!

surveyor_101

Yes it does

Coupon-mad

surveyor_101 wrote: »

link to pdf of appeal with detail blanked out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbzn9jwc4tnfois/Parking%20Eye.pdf?dl=0

Can I just state their planning permission does not support their signage?

My company sec may have muddy the waters with his admital our guy stopped to read the map!

In your comments, allege that the contract is signed by another parking company who appear to be defunct (check the company number). This is not proof of authority flowing from the site landowner as that parking firm have never owned the site and the ownership has changed in recent months, since that was signed.

State also that you believe that car park owner (whose name does not appear on the heavily redacted contract) actually allows 15 minutes grace but the redaction of words in that old defunct 'contract' has covered that section up (I have no idea if that's the case but there WILL be a grace period in there and the amount of redacted words gives you scope to say what you think has been covered up)!

Also point out that PE are saying the contract has 'not been terminated' yet the recent POPLA cases in the public domain re Aire Street have included a shiny NEW contract with a different party, effective from 1.4.16. Yet PE are now saying in May 'the contract has not been terminated'. POPLA have the evidence themsleves that there is a NEW contract now and it's mentioned in those recent decisions (that's why you must quote them in full, see below links).

And surely you are appealing as a corporate body? A company? Then you should state that the PCN didn't arrive till day 18 (or thereabouts or whatever day over 15 days from the parking event). And, as a company can't have been the 'driver' then there can be no keeper liability because the PCN was served too late (can you prove that with your date stamp on the PCN)?

I know that PCN will not have arrived on time. Can you show that? Did you allege no keeper liability in the appeal to POPLA?

Now for the signs, look at the discrepancies in the evidence:

- the first site photos have a comment on the bottom 'large black sign removed'.

- yet as evidence they have supplied a photo from over a year ago (30.1.15) which includes that same 'large black sign' that the operator themselves state wasn't there in 2016! So in fact that photo is completely unreliable.

- the site photos do not match the aerial photo.

- the tariff sign on the left is so low down on a left hand wall that a driver arriving just to get his bearings then leave would never have seen it from a right-hand drive van. And we know the 'large black sign' wasn't even there which PE's own comments say on the footer of the photo evidence.

- and the van is pictured actually on public highway, on the driveway leaving onto the road. The pavement and driveway is not part of the site boundary and is well away from the camera point - so the photos do not actually capture the van within the car park in either one or both pictures. So the timing is wholly unreliable, an operator cannot show photos of a vehicle outside the site boundary, on the public pavement/driveway, in order to allege that the car stayed IN the car park for 14 minutes! The evidence photos do not support that allegation at all.

And look at Grace periods under the BPA CoP - and use other Aire Street successes - unless it was already covered fully in your appeal, quote the CoP re Grace Periods in your comments and remind POPLA of these recent decisions by quoting them too:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70455570#Comment_70455570

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70106132#Comment_70106132

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70675812#Comment_70675812

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70465166#Comment_70465166

Easily found by searching the forum for 2 words, 'Aire Street'. These will help but put them at the end of your PDF of comments.

Please don't tell us the Portal only allows 2000 characters for comments and doesn't allow a PDF, we know that. You don't use the Portal.

surveyor_101

Thanks thats great,

They also appear to have planning from the 1st march 16 to operator 5 hours only at a minimum charge of £25 can I add they are in breach of their planning which ceased on the 16th Jan 16 for short stay.

DollyDee_2

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/politics/long-term-plan-for-leeds-short-stay-car-park-1-7657150

So the council own the land and they had a contract with Elite Parking which expired at the end of January 2016. Elite applied for a 3 year extension. I wonder if this has been granted as, according to one of the other Aire Street threads, there were objections to it one of the reasons being the PCN's which were being issued on that site?

I wonder if the contract between the council and Elite allowed Elite to sub-contract the car park management out to ParkingEye?


The date of the "infringement" was 22/03/16 and Surveyor states his Company Secretary made the initial online appeal which according to ParkingEye's own evidence was received on Thursday 7th April 2016. If the appeal was made on the day the PCN was received that is 16 days - 2 days outside of the timescales for ANPR PCN's. The PCN is dated Friday 1st April 2016 but PE use UK Mail or something don't they?

Edit : Was away from computer and cross posted with Surveyor.

surveyor_101

This is what I have got so far:

Operator: Parking Eye Ltd
POPLA Appeal Ref:606*****

RK: ************

I allege that the contract is signed by another parking company. This is not proof of authority flowing from the site landowner as that parking firm have never owned the site and the ownership has changed in recent months, since that was signed. “Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires Operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land.” As the Operator has failed to provide any sufficient I believe this is grounds for the appeal to be upheld. Also the copy of the contract is so poor the majority of the terms are illegible and therefore unreadable.

I also understand that car park owner (whose name does not appear on the heavily redacted contract) actually allows 15 minutes grace period (our vehicle is alleged to have been on site 14minutes so within this period) but the redaction of words in that old defunct 'contract' has covered that section up. PE themselves claim they have a grace period in their evidence but make no reference as to where this can be found or to its duration within their evidence. The British Parking Association code of practice 13.2 states: 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.


More concerning is Parking Eye Ltd (hereafter PE) are saying the contract has 'not been terminated' yet the recent POPLA cases in the public domain re Aire Street have included a NEW contract with a different party, effective from 01.04.16. Yet PE are now saying in May 'the contract has not been terminated'. POPLA have the evidence themselves that there is a NEW contract now and it's mentioned in those recent decisions. ( On 12.03.16 PE alleged a vehicle **12** entered the aire street car park @ 15.25 exiting at 15:37, totalling a stay of 12 minutes. In this PE submitted a new contract dated the 01.04.16. POPLA ruled in favour of the appellant as the contract was dated after the date of the alleged breach. Why have the submitted an old contract to support their case in this appeal?

In terms of the PCN it didn't arrive until 07.04.16, 16 days after the alleged parking event. As a company can't have been the 'driver' then there can be no keeper liability because the PCN was served too late as per below image.
[IMG]file:///C:\Users\JAMES~1.BUR\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg[/IMG]



Now for the signs, look at the discrepancies in the evidence:

- The first site photos have a comment on the bottom 'large black sign removed'.

- Yet as evidence they have supplied a photo from over a year ago (30.1.15) which includes that same 'large black sign' that the operator themselves state wasn't there in 2016! So in fact that photo is completely unreliable.

- the site photos do not match the aerial photo.

- the tariff sign on the left is so low down on a left hand wall that a driver arriving just to get his bearings then leave would never have seen it from a right-hand drive van. And we know the 'large black sign' wasn't even there which PE's own comments say on the footer of the photo evidence.

- and the van is pictured actually on public highway, on the driveway leaving onto the road. The pavement and driveway is not part of the site boundary and is well away from the camera point - so the photos do not actually capture the van within the car park in either one or both pictures. So the timing is wholly unreliable, an operator cannot show photos of a vehicle outside the site boundary, on the public pavement/driveway, in order to allege that the car stayed IN the car park for 14 minutes! The evidence photos do not support that allegation at all.


The charge was not based upon a GPEOL and there is no justification for breach of the duty to allow grace periods

This case is an unfair penalty and differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgment which PE have referred in their evidence to justify the £100 Charge. The Beavis case deal specifically with an overstay of 40 or so minutes over stay in a 2 hour free car park. In this case PE has a tariff allowing parking for 1 hour for £2.00.

The charge is for an alleged (but denied) 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 this non-landowning third party can claim a sum in excess of any damages. However, no such GPEOL or justification can apply here.

Unlike in Beavis, it is confidently 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 a failure in their duty to deal fairly with consumers and a failure to follow the requirements of their industry Code of Practice. £100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff and there was no unpaid parking time in any case. They claim the vehicle was on site and according to the own signs payment of £2.00 would of allowed a contract to be formed for 1 Hour. How can PE justify in this case £100 for breaching a contract to pay £2.00 for 1 hours minimum parking to cover the 14 minutes they allege.