Parking Eye Legalese

pilotc182

I'm currently appealing, on the grounds of 'Mitigating Circumstances' and 'Unreasonable Charge' (£100- £60 for quick payment - for a 45mins on the perimeter of a £2/hr area) ticket from Parking Eye, my first ever one of these outrageous grabs on my wallet.
Does anyone have any comments/thoughts on the jargon on the attached reply to my initial appeal.?
(Sorry its a bit 'wordy' but can't add attachments)

"The case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley 2014, proves particularly beneficial when considering the creation of a contract with the driver. Here if was stated that "ii is well established that a valid contract can be made by offer, in the form of terms and conditions set out on the notice, and acceptance, in the form of one's car in the space provided [..,] any unequivocal act of acceptance will suffice, and the signs clearly state (as anyone would expect nowadays) that parking constitutes acceptance,"
The Supreme Court has now subsequently supported this positon and Lord Mance states within
the Judgment that, "There is common ground between all before the court that the relationship
between ParkingEye and Mr Beavis was a contractual relationship [..J Mr Beavis undertook not to
park for more [than] two hours and, upon any breach of that obligation, incurred a liability of t85."
He then goes on to state that, "[..J I am satisfied that it is connect in law. The terms of the signs
which Mr Beavis must be taken to have accepted by conduct in entering and parking in the car park
are to that effect. Mr Beavis thereby expressly agreed to stay for two hours maximum [...] and to
pay the stipulated sum if he failed so to comply."

"ln relation to the value and enforceability of the Parking Charge, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye's favour. The Supreme Court considered the Defendant's submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither 'ertravagant' nor 'unconscionable'.
ln terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association
Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and
the Justices note that, "The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA
must justify their charges under their code of practice".
Lord Hodge states that ". . .local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and a/so the evidence that
it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive [. . .] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.
ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support
the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable."

Umkomaas

Is this included in the PE rejection of your initial appeal? What did you say in your initial appeal?

Was there a POPLA code provided in the PE response?

pilotc182

Hi Unkomaas

Yes, this was an inclusion - attached to a covering letter
There is no POPLA code (yet) They say if I don't supply some 'evidence' then a code will be provided.
Do you want me to post my entire appeal letter ?

pogofish

Appeals based on Mitigating Circumstances are seldom successful and there is no such thing as an unreasonable charge to a circling shark of a company that just wants your money.

Much better to use the template appeal in the Newbies Sticky, then follow the advice it contains for a proper POPLA appeal.

pilotc182

Thanks, my original appeal did use the template letter from the MSE site
Sorry, new to all this. Where do I find Newbies Sticky ?

Fruitcake

pilotc182 wrote: »

Thanks, my original appeal did use the template letter from the MSE site
Sorry, new to all this. Where do I find Newbies Sticky ?

The NEWBIES Sticky thread is near the top of the page where you made your first post, one click back. It asks you to read it before starting a new thread. Alternatively use the forum jump button near he top right of this page.

When you say you used the template from MSE, I assume you mean the awful one produced by MSE themselves rather than the one produced by Coupon-Mad in the NEWBIES thread. If you used the one from C-M you would already know how to find the NEWBIES Sticky thread.

Please post your initial appeal here as I think the MSE version tells you to reveal who was driving which is dreadful advice.

pilotc182

Hi Fruicake. This is my original appeal letter

"You issued me with a parking ticket on 10/5/16 – which arrived at my address today (20/5/16) - but I believe it was unfairly issued.
I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle.
I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reason:

• Mitigating circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle remained where it did and I am requesting that the charge be waived for this reason.
Specifically, the driver was having technical difficulties with the car and was unable to reach the car park proper at the time of entry.
After several failed attempts to restart the vehicle, culminating in allowing the engine to cool sufficiently, the vehicle was ultimately restarted and the vehicle was moved to the car park proper – and the appropriate parking fee was made – copy of parking ticket attached.

The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable
The amount you have charged is not based upon any commercially justifiable loss to your company or the landowner.

In this case, the £100/£60 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of 40 minutes parking i.e. your fee is £60 but parking costs £2-an-hour ergo the vehicle would have to have been there for 50/30 hours to justify the charge. I therefore feel the charge you have asked for is excessive.

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.

Quentin

Await your POPLA code and put in a "proper" appeal then (not based on mitigation!)


Come back with your draft POPLA appeal for comment before you send it in

pilotc182

OK, will do but still can't find the 'Newbies Sticky' - am I being thick ?

pilotc182

BTW: The alleged 'offence' took place on the 3/5 - but although their 'Notice' is dated 10/5, I didn't receive anything until 20/5 - outside the 14 days notification period. Any mileage there ?

Quentin

pilotc182 wrote: »

OK, will do but still can't find the 'Newbies Sticky' - am I being thick ?

Sticky thread towards the top of the forum