We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help With POPLA Draft Appeal - ParkingEye Derby
NameUser
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi all, recently received a PCN from ParkingEye for overstaying in a free car park that had a maximum stay limit of 2 hours, it was night time and the driver genuinely didn't notice any signs there.
I appealed first to ParkingEye with the template from the Parking Cowboys website and received the standard rejection letter so after a researching this forum I've put together a draft appeal for POPLA by collating and tweaking other examples from users here.
I have not identified myself as being the driver, however I received the newer format reply from ParkingEye containing the paragraph mentioning the "29 Day Rule" with regards to NTK, so I'm assuming I can't effectively include the point concerning PoFA 2012, could you please confirm this for me?
I have also left out the GPEoL point after reading it is no longer effective due to the ParkingEye Vs Beavis case, is this correct?
Here is my appeal, I'd appreciate any feedback/comments on anything I've missed or should change etc. Hopefully I'm on the right track there was a lot of new information to learn in this process! Many thanks.
ParkingEye PCN:
POPLA Code:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice referenced above; I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (evening).
2. No Contract was entered into between the ParkingEye and the Driver or Registered keeper.
3. No evidence of landowner authority.
4. ANPR Accuracy and compliance.
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (evening).
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication:
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.”
The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that ParkingEye is now demanding.
The alleged breach occurred in the evening after dark and the signs were not visible (readable) or sufficiently illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself was not illuminated as the public lighting was off. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by ParkingEye to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time of darkness.
The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:
“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. Clearly none of these conditions were met.”
Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. ParkingEye did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible (lit) from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.
So, for this appeal I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver’s perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver’s seat, not stock examples in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere “stock examples” of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
2. No Contract was entered into between the ParkingEye and the Driver or Registered keeper.
The signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed.
It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.
Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.
I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority.
As this operator 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.
4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance.
I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was “fundamentally flawed” as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system" there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live." Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.
In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
“21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 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.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''
At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA CoP breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance) a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case.) This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.
I appealed first to ParkingEye with the template from the Parking Cowboys website and received the standard rejection letter so after a researching this forum I've put together a draft appeal for POPLA by collating and tweaking other examples from users here.
I have not identified myself as being the driver, however I received the newer format reply from ParkingEye containing the paragraph mentioning the "29 Day Rule" with regards to NTK, so I'm assuming I can't effectively include the point concerning PoFA 2012, could you please confirm this for me?
I have also left out the GPEoL point after reading it is no longer effective due to the ParkingEye Vs Beavis case, is this correct?
Here is my appeal, I'd appreciate any feedback/comments on anything I've missed or should change etc. Hopefully I'm on the right track there was a lot of new information to learn in this process! Many thanks.
ParkingEye PCN:
POPLA Code:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle related to the parking charge notice referenced above; I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds:
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (evening).
2. No Contract was entered into between the ParkingEye and the Driver or Registered keeper.
3. No evidence of landowner authority.
4. ANPR Accuracy and compliance.
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time (evening).
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication:
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.”
The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that ParkingEye is now demanding.
The alleged breach occurred in the evening after dark and the signs were not visible (readable) or sufficiently illuminated to be seen by any driver entering the car park at that time of the day; the car park itself was not illuminated as the public lighting was off. These are not mitigating circumstances but failure by ParkingEye to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met and I demand strict proof that those signs are visible at the time of darkness.
The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:
“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material similar to that used on public roads and described in the Traffic Signs Manual. Dark-coloured areas do not need to be reflective. Clearly none of these conditions were met.”
Furthermore, the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. ParkingEye did not provide me with evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible (lit) from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.
So, for this appeal I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver’s perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver’s seat, not stock examples in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere “stock examples” of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
2. No Contract was entered into between the ParkingEye and the Driver or Registered keeper.
The signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed.
It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.
Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.
I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority.
As this operator 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.
4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance.
I require ParkingEye Ltd to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was “fundamentally flawed” as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
In addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system" there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live." Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.
In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
“21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 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.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''
At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA CoP breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance) a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case.) This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.
0
Comments
-
Oh dear, is that the one headed 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS'? Do you understand what those words mean? If not, check them out, especially as PE is the most litigious PPC in the UK.I appealed first to ParkingEye with the template from the Parking Cowboys website
We don't recommend that template at all, as technically it is not an appeal. You're lucky that PE responded to you with a POPLA code.
However, turning to your draft:
It looks like you need more in your appeal. Here is a 'crib list' I keep and copy to those entering the POPLA process as the items that need to be considered for inclusion. If you decide not to include one (or more), you need to be clear in your mind why you are not doing so.
No keeper liability, including Notice to Keeper errors (PoFA 2012)
The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
No Contract to manage parking
No Locus Standi
Signage
Consumer Rights Act 2015
BPA Code of Practice breaches
Why Beavis doesn't apply in your parking event
Have you used the template appeal points from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3. A combination of those lengthy pieces, plus others plagiarised from other successful appeals have generally seen even the likes of PE run away.
Have you asked the landowner to intervene and get this cancelled. Can be the most effective way of killing this off.
You may feel as you've not identified the driver in any correspondence with PE, but you need to reappraise your opening para to your post above as there is some inference there. They do read the forum.Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thanks for the reply, I have edited my first post. Unfortunately yes it was that template, perhaps a mention to advise against using it in the newbies sticky would be helpful to others similar to me as it is the top result that comes up when googling and appears to be a decent website.
To your first 2 points on the draft; this is what I was seeking clarification on as the letter I received from ParkingEye includes the new paragraph concerning the “after 29 days” issue. From what I could gather from the newbies thread these appeal points are only effective if you receive the old letter with the “blank space.” If you believe I should still include these points please clarify and I will add them to the draft.
I believe I have satisfied the next 3 points on the list as well as the BPA CoP point. I haven’t found any information on the “Consumer Rights Act 2015” point yet, if you could direct me at all to what that relates to that would be appreciated, thanks.0 -
I don't mention that website on the NEWBIES thread, my choice.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »I don't mention that website on the NEWBIES thread, my choice.
Ok sure, was only a suggestion.
In re: to the other point in my previous post I found this quote from you Coupon-Mad:
"With ParkingEye, don't hide behind 'no evidence of driver' if the original PCN was a POFA one with the 29 days to keeper liability wording and was received within 14 days. She cannot show 'no compliance with the POFA/no keeper liability' unless the PCN was a non-POFA one with a blank space, like the one shown in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread."
So I will leave this point out of my appeal as I first thought.
I don't think complaining to the landowner would work as the car was parked outside of the shopping hours of the stores on site.
I think all I'm missing is the "Consumer Rights Act 2015" point so I will keep searching the threads on here for that unless anyone could kindly point me in the right direction?
Could anyone possibly provide any more suggestions/help/info you may think I need?0 -
Thought I would try bumping again now the bank holiday weekend is over. After some more research I've addded a new point on the Consumer Rights Act. Hoping I've worded this correctly and would appreciate if anyone could give any advice/pointers on my appeal, don't seem to be having much luck here.
5. Breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015
I wish to direct the POPLA assessor to the following two sections of the CRA 2015, first, as stated in:
Part 2 - Unfair Terms, under 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.
I submit that the terms on the signage at the car park are not fully visible (legible) or transparent either from a drivers perspective upon entrance or throughout the car park, and I put the operator to strict proof otherwise.
Second, as stated in:
Schedule 2 - Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair, under Part 1
(6) A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
I submit that the charge from ParkingEye is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the “penalty rule” (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case which turned on completely different facts, and can therefore be regarded as unfair.0 -
If the overstay was mere minutes over the 2 hours you can add a section on Grace periods. Other than that, if this is a PCN that arrived within 14 days and claims 'keeper liability' then I can't see you can add much more.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards