Parking Eye Appeal Refused, Should I appeal to POPLA

worldofmyown

Hi All,

Sorry I am a newbie here, so please pardon me for any errors.

I received a PCN in post by ParkingEye for overstaying at Mecca Bingo Wood Green London. I appealed to ParkingEye without going through the forum and selected (Driver and Registered Keeper) as my option. I know its a mistake, just realised it after going through the forum.

I stayed for 3 hours 34 mins in the car park but paid for 3 hours only.

I never knew that they had camera which tracks the time and never even realised that I would have stayed over by half n hour. I tried to buy maximum hours and for a 2hours movie at the Vue cinema I thought 3 hours would be good enough but unfortunately it wasn't.

I have received a rejection of my appeal from Parking Eye with a POPLA reference number.

£60 is a lot of money for me, do you think I have enough grounds to appeal to POPLA? Do you think its worth appealing?

Thanks for your help.

TW1234

Have you complained to Vue cinemas and asked them to use their discretion powers to cancel the PC? The potential publicity may obtain a satisfactory outcome. If unsuccessful with the local manager, continue through their PR dept and CEO.. Presuming Vue and Mecca share the car park
Read the Newby pinned thread at top of this board and also the POPLA successes threads. How many can you identify as pertinent to your case? An appeal to POPLA costs you nothing, but post your draft appeal before submitting.

Coupon-mad

Definitely try the complaint first. Be really assertive, this is unfair and unwarranted and you want the Cinema to step in and cancel this one because you know they can (PE being their contractor).

Then definitely try POPLA. PE often drop out at POPLA stage when faced with a very long 'forum appeal'. See the NEWBIES thread post #3.

worldofmyown

Thanks for your help guys.

Vue cinema doesn't own the parking. It is owned by Mecca Bingo.

I emailed Mecca Bingo manager asking him to cancel the parking. I got a reply saying he has asked ParkingEye to cancel the ticket. He said he will only get back to me if Parking Eye responds saying the ticket can't be cancelled.

I have 12 days left to make a payment, after that the 60 pound fine increases to 100.

My question is how would I know that Parking Eye has cancelled the ticket? Will I get a reply from Parking Eye saying the ticket is cancelled?
Or should I chase up the manager at Mecca Bingo after some time?

Hope this gets cancelled.

Thanks

Umkomaas

For all their other faults, PE are good at notifying cancellations in writing, usually 7-10 days.

Don't be 'seduced' by the discount bribe, it's there to persuade you not to appeal, save them having to deal with an appeal and a likely total loss at POPLA.

You have it in writing from the principal to the contract that the charge is to be cancelled - keep that very safe.

Coupon-mad

I have 12 days left to make a payment, after that the 60 pound fine increases to 100.

It is not a fine, and anyway we've advised you proceed to POPLA, like everyone else here does.

Don't be 'seduced' by the discount bribe

Nutshell!

The_Deep

Appeal to PoPLA, it costs the PPC money.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

Appeal to PoPLA, it costs the PPC money.

With a forum-led appeal, PE will pull out, saving themselves having to deal with the detailed points and in the process, saving themselves the POPLA fee.

All the odds here are favouring the OP.

worldofmyown

Thanks all,

I will prepare an appeal and post it here for any comments.

Also now that I have said that I am the driver and the registered keeper when appealing to Parking Eye, will that make a difference when appealing to POPLA?

Also will wait appealing to POPLA as the manager at Mecca Bingo has emailed me saying he has requested for the ticket to be cancelled. So will give few days for that to see if I here from ParkingEye about the cancellation.

If not then I will appeal to POPLA. Let me know what you'll think.

Thanks for your help guys.

Umkomaas

Also now that I have said that I am the driver and the registered keeper when appealing to Parking Eye, will that make a difference when appealing to POPLA?

If you've actually appealed to PE nominating yourself as the driver, you will be unable to use PoFA (no keeper liability) as part of your POPLA appeal. A bit of an own goal, but definitely not fatal to your case.

Don't miss your POPLA deadline as PE are litigious and court papers may well follow soon after if no POPLA appeal is launched.

worldofmyown

Hi All,

I have created this small POPLA appeal. Please can you guys have a quick read and provide any feedback.

Thanks

POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd.
The driver visited the car park of Mecca Bingo Wood Green for leisure and parked the car at the parking space provided by Mecca Bingo.
Although Mecca Bingo customers are eligible for free parking, there was no clear signage so the driver decided to pay for the parking.
The parking space has very limited lighting and it is very difficult to read anything at night on the signage board, especially for the person with glasses. Due to the difficulty and the strain on the eyes to read the signage the driver decided to go to the payment kiosk and pay for the parking, he put the money in the kiosk to pay for the parking but the kiosk took the money without issuing the ticket, then the driver tried again, again the kiosk again took the money without given a ticket, on the third try the kiosk gave the ticket and took the money. The driver frustrated with the kiosk took the ticket for 3 hours and paying more than required.
Parking Eye claims that the driver stayed in the car park for 3 hours 34 mins. But they are not considering the amount of time spent at the car park due to the payment kiosk not working properly and also not considering the fact that the payment kiosk taking money without issuing any ticket. They are also not considering the fact that the signage was so difficult to read that the driver had to give up on reading and just go straight to the payment kiosk. The Mecca Bingo Wood Green parking has 150 parking spaces but only 1 payment kiosk that too not checked and tested for working conditions.
A totally unfair parking ticket issued when the parking space is so poorly lit with only 1 non-working payment kiosk.
I would like to appeal to POPLA to reject this parking ticket on the following basis:
1. No proper lighting: The parking space has no proper lighting and is very dark. This makes it very difficult for a person with glasses to read any signage. The proof of this can be seen in the evidence sent by Parking Eye with the images. I would like POPLA to request Parking Eye to provide details of visibility and lighting conditions at night at the parking space.
2. Faulty payment kiosk: There is only 1 payment kiosk for a parking with 150 parking spaces and the kiosk is also faulty. It only gave a parking ticket at the third try, taking money at every try. I request POPLA to request Parking Eye to provide details of when the payment kiosk was last tested for it’s working conditions by an engineer. It is also possible that the time on the payment kiosk were not correct.
3. No grace period: The time duration provided by ParkingEye doesn’t considers any grace period or the time spent firstly trying to read the signage without proper lights and secondly trying to pay for the parking with only 1 faulty payment kiosk. A driver with special need should be allowed extra time to park and pay.
4. No clear sign: On inquiring with the owner of the land (Mecca Bingo), it turned out that the parking is free for its customers without any time restrictions. No clear signs and instructions are provided for this, as this requires the driver to register the car at the site. Also, the signage is very high and can’t be read at night and while sitting inside the car. Also, on coming out of the car and standing close to the signage, it is very difficult to read the terms at night.
5. ANPR check: As I have seen how faulty the payment kiosk was, I am in doubt about the ANPR system as well. I never realised that I stayed for 3 hours 34 mins although I didn’t check the time I entered and the time I exited the parking. But given a faulty payment kiosk with no proper check, the ANPR camera could also be faulty. I therefore request POPLA to get the ANPR cameras checked and Parking Eye to provide evidence of when it was last tested for its working conditions. No signage for any cameras installed in the car park to take the entry and exit time.
6. Owner’s approval: The owner of the car park has approved the parking and have requested Parking Eye to cancel the ticket. The email from the owner is attached with this appeal. The parking for the customers of Mecca Bingo is free but the driver still paid for 3 hours, this is a genuine case where the driver is not trying to abuse the parking space.
This charge is incompatible with the rights under the lease - as decided by the Appeal case of 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016, which also held that the Beavis case does not apply to this sort of car park.
In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other 'legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question'. The true test was held to be 'whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest [...] in the enforcement of the primary obligation'.

There can be no legitimate interest in punishing authorised parking, under the excuse of a 'parking' scheme where ostensibly - and as far as the landowner is concerned - the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the leaseholders/landholders/tenants. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and 'out of all proportion to any legitimate interest' to issue a parking penalty for permitted unloading/loading by a driver who has legitimate business and rights to do so.

These rights supersede any signs, which are of no consequence except to deter rogue unwanted drivers from leaving their vehicles when they have no business on site. This is true of any residential or business car park where tenants/leaseholders (who may be individuals or businesses) enjoy legal 'rights of way' which extend to drivers permitted to load/unload. A third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of a tenancy agreement or a lease, nor disregard easements and rights of way that prevail in such car parks (residential or industrial).

This question was tested recently in an Appeal case in June 2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA*). Please note this is an Appeal case, decided by a Senior Circuit Judge and as such, its findings on the definition of 'parking as opposed to loading' and the findings on leaseholder/permitted visitor/loading/delivering rights of way superseding parking signs, are persuasive on the lower courts.

Beavis did not deal with any of these matters - nor was it relevant to a 'permit' car park - but the following case and transcript I have provided, is relevant and the Judge even states that Beavis DOES NOT APPLY to this type of car park:

Appeal case at Oxford County Court, 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES' case number: B9GF0A9E on 29th June 2016:

Sitting in Oxford County Court, Judge Charles Harris QC, found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats who parked in front of the communal entrance to unload furniture, rather than use her own parking space. After an initial appeal to the Independent Parking Committee was rejected, Home Guard Services sued Miss Jopson in the small claims court and won. Miss Jopson successfully appealed the case, her solicitors arguing that the charge was incompatible with the terms of the existing lease which also extended to certain rights for permitted visitors when loading/unloading. The Judge found that Laura Jopson and her fellow tenants (as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) enjoy a right of way to the block’s entrance and that Home Guard Services’ regulations disregarded these rights. Home Guard Services were required to pay £2,000 towards the defendant's costs.

I also rely upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 (transcript attached as evidence for POPLA**).

District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, stating: ''I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.''
7. Landowner authority: As ParkingEye does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 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

Thanks

Regards,