Parking Eye Popla Apeal Help

surveyor_101

Dolly Dee, found no proof the land owner is Leeds City Council were did you find that?

That is correct and Elite filed their appeal on planning late and it was declined. Leed city council commented the did want to encourage short stay parking here so 5 hours or nothing. The land owner also have planning permission to build hence its a gravel pit and not a tarmacadam car park. They got 3 year temp permission granted until 16.01.16 to run a short term carpark.

What was granted on the 1.03.16 was 5 hour stay only and a fee of no less than £25 extended for 2 or 3 years.

Our dated stamp shows the Notice to Keeper arrived 7th April 2 days late. Yes I have it dated stamped same as all our post.

So by operating this carpark as short stay still they breach their own planning permisson. Not sure if that helps our case or not. The GPEOL loss goes from £2 for 1 hour to £25 for 5 hours.

DollyDee_2

From reading the article in the Yorkshire Evening Post I thought the council owned it, however, following your comment, I've just read it again and I'm mistaken. The council are granting permission for Elite Parking/ParkingEye to operate as a car park on that land.

Sorry.:o

Coupon-mad

The charge was not based upon a GPEOL

Do not say that. Drop 'GPEOL' completely.

And you need to make it clear at the start that 'Dear POPLA, these are NOT new appeal points. These are my comments on the evidence pack which I understand I am entitled to make and for the Assessor to consider as part of the case...'

Then continue in a much less 'POPLA appeal' mode, specifically putting headings about PE's evidence.

e.g. a heading saying:

'The operator's signage evidence is flawed' and

'the operator's contract is heavily redacted and misleading'

etc.

So that the entire submission doesn't look like another POPLA appeal (POPLA will throw it out of they read it as if you are adding more appeal points).

Your final 3 paragraphs, whilst valid, do not read like 'comments on the evidence'. Keep it all on task.

surveyor_101

updated

Operator: Parking Eye Ltd
POPLA Appeal Ref: 6061176090
Vehicle Registration Mark: LD63KRO
Registered Keeper : Offsite Solutions (RT) Ltd

Dear POPLA,
These are NOT new appeal points. These are my comments on the evidence pack which I understand I am entitled to make and for the Assessor to consider as part of the case.

'The operator's contract is heavily redacted and misleading'
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 of such a poor quality 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 14 minutes so within this grace 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 of this grace period. 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.

'The operator's contract presented in this case is may have been terminated’
Of concern is Parking Eye Ltd (hereafter PE) are saying the contract has 'not been terminated' yet the recent POPLA case in the public domain re Aire Street PE have included a NEW contract with a different party, effective from 01.04.16. Yet PE is 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 the appeal was allowed as the contract was dated after the date (01.04.16) of the alleged breach. Why have the submitted an old contract to support their case in this appeal?
Copy of the Assessors comments from recent POPLA appeal with regard to alleged parking event 12.03.16:
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number XX12XXX, entering Aire Street car park at 15:25, and exiting at 15:37, totalling a stay of 12 minutes. The operator states that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant has failed to make payment for their time in the car park. The appellant advises that the operator does not have the sufficient authority to issue charges on the land. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a site agreement in response to this ground of appeal. Upon review of this, I cannot consider that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention, as the document is signed on the date of 1st April 2016. The date of the parking event in this case is the 12th March 2016, as such I cannot consider that the operator had the sufficient authority on the date of the event, to issue PCNs on the land. As such, I cannot determine that the PCN has been issued correctly While I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, I have not considered these as I have already allowed the appeal on this ground.

The date of the parking event in this case is 22nd March 2016 so prior to the contract in this case.

‘The operator’s notice to keeper (ntk) was not served in time to achieve keeper liability’
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. PoFa states Where a NtK is sent via the post (and no NtD was issued at the time of the parking event) then the PPC must serve the NtK on the registered keeper within 14 days. If the NtK is either posted or received outside the 14 days then the PPC has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA and the registered keeper cannot be held legally liable for the driver’s debt. You will also note the first appeal was lodged on the day receipt 07.04.2016.
Image below shows the day it was received by the RTK and dated stamped on day of receipt.




'The operator's signage evidence is flawed'

- The first site photos have a comment on the bottom 'large black sign removed'. The photo is dated (30.01.15) but the document is dated some 8 months later been revised with this comment dated (02.09.15).



- 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. For example the area on the site plan marked ‘entrance & exit’ show two ‘Type 2 signs’ left and right of the entrance/exit.


This photo only shows 1 number type 2 sign on the left and not one on the right. This does not match the site plan. The operators photo evidence is not accurate and is misleading.



- 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. Therefore I believe the signage evidence in this case is not accurate and is misleading.

‘Operators photo evidence of your vehicle taken from ANPR Cameras’

- 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.




‘Operator has referenced ‘Beavis V Parking Eye’ to support the charge of £100’
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 were no chargeable tariff existed. In this case PE has a (Pay to Park) tariff allowing parking in hourly blocks with no free period ie for 1 hour- for £2.00 Charge.

The (£100) charge is for an alleged (but denied) breach of contract (ie not paying £2.00 minimum parking tariff for 1 hours parking) 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.

Coupon-mad

I'd get rid of the inverted commas around the headings. And your final point needs beefing up and a better heading (so what if they referenced it, more important is that you say it doesn't apply and show HOW it doesn't apply)!

Try reading some of Edna Basher's recent posts about the Beavis case.

surveyor_101

I am submitting today this is my final as due by the 31st as per my extension, thank for all the help.


Operator:
POPLA Appeal Ref:
Vehicle Registration Mark:
Registered Keeper :

Dear POPLA,
These are NOT new appeal points. These are my comments on the evidence pack which I understand we are entitled to make and for the Assessor to consider as part of the case.

The Operator's contract is heavily redacted and misleading
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 of such a poor quality 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 14 minutes so within this grace 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 of this grace period. 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.

The Operator's contract presented in this case is may have been terminated
Of concern is Parking Eye Ltd (hereafter PE) are saying the contract has 'not been terminated' yet the recent POPLA case in the public domain re Aire Street PE have included a NEW contract with a different party, effective from 01.04.16. Yet PE is 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 the appeal was allowed as the contract was dated after the date (01.04.16) of the alleged breach. Why have the submitted an old contract to support their case in this appeal?
Copy of the Assessors comments from recent POPLA appeal with regard to alleged parking event 12.03.16:
Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, registration number XX12XXX, entering Aire Street car park at 15:25, and exiting at 15:37, totalling a stay of 12 minutes. The operator states that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant has failed to make payment for their time in the car park. The appellant advises that the operator does not have the sufficient authority to issue charges on the land. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has provided a site agreement in response to this ground of appeal. Upon review of this, I cannot consider that the operator had sufficient authority on the date of the contravention, as the document is signed on the date of 1st April 2016. The date of the parking event in this case is the 12th March 2016, as such I cannot consider that the operator had the sufficient authority on the date of the event, to issue PCNs on the land. As such, I cannot determine that the PCN has been issued correctly While I note that the appellant has raised other grounds for appeal, I have not considered these as I have already allowed the appeal on this ground.

The date of the parking event in this case is 22nd March 2016 so prior to the contract in the aforementioned case.

The Operator’s notice to keeper (ntk) was not served in time to achieve keeper liability
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. PoFa states Where a NtK is sent via the post (and no NtD was issued at the time of the parking event) then the PPC must serve the NtK on the registered keeper within 14 days. If the NtK is either posted or received outside the 14 days then the PPC has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA and the registered keeper cannot be held legally liable for the driver’s debt. You will also note the first appeal was lodged on the day receipt 07.04.2016.
Image below shows the day it was received by the RTK and dated stamped on day of receipt. We are ISO: 9001 and 14001 accredited organisation and all post is date stamped the day it arrives Mon-Fri (Royal mail do not deliver to us on Saturdays).




The Operator's signage evidence is flawed
- The first site photos have a comment on the bottom 'large black sign removed'. The photo is dated (30.01.15) but the document is dated some 8 months later been revised with this comment dated (02.09.15).



- 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 evidence is completely unreliable and contradictory.


- The site photos do not match the aerial photo. For example the area on the site plan marked ‘entrance & exit’ show two ‘Type 2 signs’ wall mounted left and right of the entrance/exit.


This photo only shows 1 number type 2 sign on the left and not one on the right. This does not match the site plan. This shows discrepancies in operators photo evidence.


- 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. Therefore I believe the signage evidence in this case is not accurate and is misleading.

Operator’s photo evidence of our vehicle taken from ANPR Cameras

- 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.




Operator has referenced ‘Beavis V Parking Eye’ but failed to disengage the ‘penalty rule’
This case differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgment which PE have referred in their evidence to justify the £100 Charge. 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.

Operators named party on the contract no longer have planning permission to operate the car park at Aire Street, Leeds using the detailed conditions, tariff in their evidence (Leeds City Council Application No. 15/07448/FU)
The operator has provided a contract from Elite Parking Ltd (ELL hereafter) in its evidence which shows a short term car park tariff in hourly blocks. On receipt of this contract I made enquiries as to ELL and their planning permission for a short term car park which was granted to 16.01.13 for 3 years until ending on 16.01.16. ELL appealed for an extension which was Granted with changes to operation of the car park. As of the 01.03.16 which no longer allows the Parking Tariff system in the operators photo and contract evidence. Please see below extract from the planning permission Decision Notice dated 01.03.16 shows they are now operating this car park outside on the planning conditions. They only have planning permission to operate a 5 hour stay period for no less than £25 charge from the 01.03.16. Please see below evidence. In continue to operate the car park using the Tariff shown in the operator’s evidence breaches the planning permission granted ie the signage states overnight stay is permitted for a charge. The planning permission in place states hours of operation can only be 06:30am- 09:30pm etc.

The Assessor can access and confirm this information using the below but for ease we have attached a copy of the relevant information: https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NZCQ2YJB0FZ00




This concludes our comments on the operator’s evidence submission in this case.

Yours sincerely






*****

Northlakes

On the last item on planning suggest that you just add that this is in contravention of BPA code of practice 2.4.

It just makes this a bit stronger although PE disregard all planning rules.

surveyor_101

Gone in now Fingers Crossed

surveyor_101

BPA have come back you will not your appeal the same as POPLA as the operator upload theirs!

Is that right, BPA seem to not give a toss

Still not received the postal pack from PE. Is that right as I though the BPA rules were :

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.

Is it worth complaining about all the other breaches to the BPA?