Parking Eye - Parking Notice Charge for parking in Aldi, Bangor

Jo4

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK, you have 28 days to use a POPLA code so leave it a week, give yourself a rest from it. Come back and use the one already linked, to create a similar POPLA appeal for yourself, when you feel better.

Do no put it off longer than that in case life takes over and you forget!

I was put on new medication and it wasn't agreeing with me so I have stopped taking it.

Going to try and get this sorted within the next 24 hours, fingers crossed I manage.

Jo4

I have composed an email for Aldi. Should I post it here to see if it is alright or should I just email them?

Coupon-mad

I would just email them, especially if you have any receipts or bank statements. Do not say who was driving.

Jo4

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would just email them, especially if you have any receipts or bank statements. Do not say who was driving.

I emailed Aldi although as previously stated I do not have any receipts or bank statements.

I hope Aldi cancel PE's parking charge.

Coupon-mad

They won't without some proof of patronage. So don't hold your breath.

But this is winnable at POPLA, usually based on 'unclear signs' (as Aldi car parks have shockingly bad PE signs). Plus all the other appeal points you find when you search 'ParkingEye POPLA' or 'Aldi POPLA'.

Only read 2016 search results, no older.

Jo4

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Errrrrmmmm...no. Are you a cup-half-empty person? Why assume it is too late?

You said they sent you a POPLA code at the end of August so you have another fortnight to copy and adapt the one already written.

You do not need to check the code against any 'code checker'. You have 28 days from the rejection letter. This is simple and someone else has already written one for you to plagiarise. What's not to like? EASY.

Does this make sense?


I would like to appeal this PCN from ParkingEye at Aldi Bangor car park, on the following grounds:

1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

2. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland

3. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

4. Unclear / Inadequate Signage.



1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator in both showing that I, the appellant and registered keeper, have not complied with terms in place on the land and showing that I am liable for the parking charge issued. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is my right, under Schedule 4, to not name the driver and still not be lawfully held liable.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of a charge being recorded. Operators should never suggest this. Furthermore, a failure or refusal to name the driver on the part of the recipient of a parking charge notice under Schedule 4 does not mean that the recipient accepts they were the driver at the material time. A keeper has no obligation to name the driver.
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a valid NTK.

Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''



2. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland

The operator cannot assume keeper liability or attempt to ‘recover’ any charge since I the registered keeper of the vehicle live in Northern Ireland. POFA does not apply to keepers in Northern Ireland and therefore the operator cannot possibly pursue their 'claims' in Northern Irish Court.



3. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) supplied by PE claims the period of parking to which this notice relates is 0 hours 54 minutes but the ANPR evidence provided clearly shows the driver entering and leaving the car park, this disproves their own calculation since, by definition, any period of parking must be exactly as stated in the Act. In order for an NTK to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) Schedule 4 (2012) it MUST define a true, stated and evidenced period of when the vehicle was actually ‘parked’. PE have not complied with the statute as it is clear from their own evidence the vehicle was not ’Parked’ for a duration of 0 hours 54 minutes.
“By remaining at the car park for longer than was made permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the Creditor)”. Apparently one is allowed to park for 90 minutes in this car park but the arrival time and departure time is only 0 hours 54 minutes.



4. Unclear/Inadequate Signage.

In circumstances where contract terms are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in the terms set out in any contract formed with the driver, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing the contract. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”) including;
Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.


The signs do not properly explain what the data captured by ANPR cameras would be used for

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice states that "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

PE did not state what they would use the date captured by ANPR cameras for consequently, PE did not obtain the consent of the driver or the keeper or the owner, to use any photographs of the vehicle that had been captured by the ANPR cameras. PE’s Parking Charge Notice is therefore invalid.

Jo4

When I used Google street maps this is the sign near the entrance,

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2289314,-4.1257412,3a,30y,90h,89.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbnHvn1KTf9hN5ycv7L0iOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

which looks like this sign,

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Parking+Eye+Aldi+Customer+Parking+Only&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBGB708GB708&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD9unuhpDPAhUrJMAKHevhAkMQ_AUICSgC&biw=1527&bih=734#imgrc=91b9o1gqYPwzIM%3A

Coupon-mad

Jo4 wrote: »

When I used Google street maps this is the sign near the entrance,

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2289314,-4.1257412,3a,30y,90h,89.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbnHvn1KTf9hN5ycv7L0iOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

which looks like this sign,

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Parking+Eye+Aldi+Customer+Parking+Only&rlz=1C1AOHY_en-GBGB708GB708&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD9unuhpDPAhUrJMAKHevhAkMQ_AUICSgC&biw=1527&bih=734#imgrc=91b9o1gqYPwzIM%3A

Good point, yes the signs are similar to the Beavis signs which is worth knowing - but if you look closely, that sign is actually placed on the right of the EXIT lane (look at the 'give way' markings). There's no sign at the entrance lane on the left and no signs in the middle bays (either that or the trees there cover them).

Have we asked this before...does the PCN suggest 'keeper liability' after 29 days, in the blurb lower down on the front, even though they were clearly addressing it to someone in NI? If it does NOT have this wording then I can show you a template appeal point to cover the fact that is not a POFA 2012 PCN (if there's a blank space near the bottom).

You need a 'no landowner authority appeal point mentioning 7.3 of the CoP (seach the forum for 'code of practice 7.3 landowner' to find an example with that paragraph).

Going back to arguing about the signs, just add to your signage point to say this:


There are whole areas of the car park with no sign in view so I put ParkingEye to strict proof (e.g. with photos of the car, the signs in situ that day) showing where the car parked and where the nearest sign was. It is contended that any purported 'aerial photo' supplied in an evidence pack is archive information and is out of date and not evidence of where signs actually are/are not positioned now, nor does it prove that such signs are not twisted round, broken or obscured by trees. In fact the car park is sporadically signed in 2016 and it is perfectly possible to drive in and park in the middle bays or beside the Aldi store where there are either no signs at all or they are obscured by the trees in the middle:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2289155,-4.1258895,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKPqIYVmveYpmfCs1kk8wjg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

At first glance, Google StreetView might suggest there is a yellow entrance sign but there is not. The sign shown on the right on Google StreetView is placed inexplicably, at the exit lane (proved by the white 'give way' dotted markings). There is no sign at the entrance lane on the left as a car comes off the mini roundabout. No transparent and legible entrance signage (or none there at all) contravenes the BPA Code of Practice which calls for mandatory entrance signs (badly placed exit signs do not pass and can't be seen).

The StreetView (2016) also shows the trees in the middle bays and no yellow signs at all. So a car can drive in and park straight ahead in the middle and the driver can walk to the Aldi store without ever reading any terms of parking at all.

Jo4

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good point, yes the signs are similar to the Beavis signs which is worth knowing - but if you look closely, that sign is actually placed on the right of the EXIT lane (look at the 'give way' markings). There's no sign at the entrance lane on the left and no signs in the middle bays (either that or the trees there cover them).

Have we asked this before...does the PCN suggest 'keeper liability' after 29 days, in the blurb lower down on the front, even though they were clearly addressing it to someone in NI?
It does, I have posted an image of the pcn in post 14 - can you please double check in case I am wrong? If it does NOT have this wording then I can show you a template appeal point to cover the fact that is not a POFA 2012 PCN (if there's a blank space near the bottom).

You need a 'no landowner authority appeal point mentioning 7.3 of the CoP (seach the forum for 'code of practice 7.3 landowner' to find an example with that paragraph).
Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

PE are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. Any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

As PE do not have proprietary interest in the land, I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.

PE has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.


Going back to arguing about the signs, just add to your signage point to say this:


There are whole areas of the car park with no sign in view so I put ParkingEye to strict proof (e.g. with photos of the car, the signs in situ that day) showing where the car parked and where the nearest sign was. It is contended that any purported 'aerial photo' supplied in an evidence pack is archive information and is out of date and not evidence of where signs actually are/are not positioned now, nor does it prove that such signs are not twisted round, broken or obscured by trees. In fact the car park is sporadically signed in 2016 and it is perfectly possible to drive in and park in the middle bays or beside the Aldi store where there are either no signs at all or they are obscured by the trees in the middle:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2289155,-4.1258895,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKPqIYVmveYpmfCs1kk8wjg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

At first glance, Google StreetView might suggest there is a yellow entrance sign but there is not. The sign shown on the right on Google StreetView is placed inexplicably, at the exit lane (proved by the white 'give way' dotted markings). There is no sign at the entrance lane on the left as a car comes off the mini roundabout. No transparent and legible entrance signage (or none there at all) contravenes the BPA Code of Practice which calls for mandatory entrance signs (badly placed exit signs do not pass and can't be seen).

The StreetView (2016) also shows the trees in the middle bays and no yellow signs at all. So a car can drive in and park straight ahead in the middle and the driver can walk to the Aldi store without ever reading any terms of parking at all.

I will update the original draft and post it here again.

Jo4

I would like to appeal this PCN from ParkingEye at Aldi Bangor car park, on the following grounds:

1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

2. No Landowner Authority

3. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland

4. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

5. Unclear / Inadequate Signage.



1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator in both showing that I, the appellant and registered keeper, have not complied with terms in place on the land and showing that I am liable for the parking charge issued. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, it is my right, under Schedule 4, to not name the driver and still not be lawfully held liable.
There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of a charge being recorded. Operators should never suggest this. Furthermore, a failure or refusal to name the driver on the part of the recipient of a parking charge notice under Schedule 4 does not mean that the recipient accepts they were the driver at the material time. A keeper has no obligation to name the driver.
Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle as they have not met the critical conditions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. As the registered keeper, I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a registered keeper without a valid NTK.

Furthermore the paramount importance of compliance with POFA 2012 was confirmed by Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in his 2015 POPLA Report: ''If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''



2 No Landowner Authority

Section 7.3 states “The written authorisation must also set out:

a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.”

PE are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. Any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

As PE do not have proprietary interest in the land, I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.

PE has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.



3. POFA 2012 does not apply to registered keepers in Northern Ireland

The operator cannot assume keeper liability or attempt to ‘recover’ any charge since I the registered keeper of the vehicle live in Northern Ireland. POFA does not apply to keepers in Northern Ireland and therefore the operator cannot possibly pursue their 'claims' in Northern Irish Court.



4. Notice to Keeper - not properly given under POFA 2012

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) supplied by PE claims the period of parking to which this notice relates is 0 hours 54 minutes but the ANPR evidence provided clearly shows the driver entering and leaving the car park, this disproves their own calculation since, by definition, any period of parking must be exactly as stated in the Act. In order for an NTK to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) Schedule 4 (2012) it MUST define a true, stated and evidenced period of when the vehicle was actually ‘parked’. PE have not complied with the statute as it is clear from their own evidence the vehicle was not ’Parked’ for a duration of 0 hours 54 minutes.
“By remaining at the car park for longer than was made permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to ParkingEye Ltd (as the Creditor)”. Apparently one is allowed to park for 90 minutes in this car park but the arrival time and departure time is only 0 hours 54 minutes.



5. Unclear/Inadequate Signage.

There are whole areas of the car park with no sign in view so I put ParkingEye to strict proof (e.g. with photos of the car, the signs in situ that day) showing where the car parked and where the nearest sign was. It is contended that any purported 'aerial photo' supplied in an evidence pack is archive information and is out of date and not evidence of where signs actually are/are not positioned now, nor does it prove that such signs are not twisted round, broken or obscured by trees. In fact the car park is sporadically signed in 2016 and it is perfectly possible to drive in and park in the middle bays or beside the Aldi store where there are either no signs at all or they are obscured by the trees in the middle:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.2289155,-4.1258895,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKPqIYVmveYpmfCs1kk8wjg!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656

At first glance, Google StreetView might suggest there is a yellow entrance sign but there is not. The sign shown on the right on Google StreetView is placed inexplicably, at the exit lane (proved by the white 'give way' dotted markings). There is no sign at the entrance lane on the left as a car comes off the mini roundabout. No transparent and legible entrance signage (or none there at all) contravenes the BPA Code of Practice which calls for mandatory entrance signs (badly placed exit signs do not pass and can't be seen).

The StreetView (2016) also shows the trees in the middle bays and no yellow signs at all. So a car can drive in and park straight ahead in the middle and the driver can walk to the Aldi store without ever reading any terms of parking at all.


In circumstances where contract terms are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in the terms set out in any contract formed with the driver, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing the contract. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”) including;
Paragraph 68: Requirement for Transparency
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.


The signs do not properly explain what the data captured by ANPR cameras would be used for

Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice states that "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for”.

PE did not state what they would use the date captured by ANPR cameras for consequently, PE did not obtain the consent of the driver or the keeper or the owner, to use any photographs of the vehicle that had been captured by the ANPR cameras. PE’s Parking Charge Notice is therefore invalid.