parking eye county court letter HELP

[Deleted User]

oh yes sorry. I did the AOS on 05.08.17.
all I received from Popla was an email saying it was unsuccessful. I can't access it at the moment though as it was done through my work email and I'm in the process of changing that account.

[Deleted User]

just managed to log onto my POPLA appeal. this is what the response

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name***********
Assessor summary of operator case
A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the motorist exceeded the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has stated they work as a nurse and they were called over to the site to assist a patient. They have advised the patient informed them they could park in the area for a limited time as there were no other available sites.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of signage at the location which outlines the terms and conditions to state, “Pick Up/Drop Off Area Only Drop off and pick up only 15 mins waiting time Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100” Photographs have also been provided by the operator which shows the appellants vehicle entering the car park at 10:01 and exiting at 10:29, totalling to a 28 minute stay. Within the appellants response they have advised they work as a nurse and they needed to attend to a patient who was unwell. They have advised the patient informed them they could park at the site for a limited period, as there were no other available sites. As such, I must consider the signage at the site and whether it was sufficient enough to inform the appellant of the terms and conditions which applied. When assessing signage at a location, I must consider the requirements as laid out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, Section 18.3 states, “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. “ Having reviewed the photographs provided by the operator along with a copy of the site plan, I am satisfied that the signage meets the requirements laid out within the BPA Code of Practice. Further, I would consider the signage to be sufficient enough to bring the terms and conditions of the site to the appellants attention. I note the within the appellants grounds of appeal they have advised it was due to a patient requiring there assistance which caused them to park at the site. When looking at appeals, POPLA considers whether a parking contract was formed and, if so, whether the motorist kept to the conditions of the contract. Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. POPLA is able to request that a parking operator cancels a parking charge if we consider that it has not given reasonable consideration to mitigating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances prevented the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions. However, the decision on whether or not to cancel the parking charge remains with the parking operator. On this occasion, we are of the view the mitigating circumstances did not prevent the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions. Therefore, we have not referred this case back to the parking operator. By remaining on the land for 28 minutes the appellant has exceeded the allocated time. In doing this, they have failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am only able to conclude the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse the appeal.

Coupon-mad

WOW, on what basis did POPLA reckon attending a patient in a flat on a high floor would not explain the few minutes taken...terrible of POPLA not to send this one back to PE and ask them to take a long hard look at themselves:

''Even if a motorist presents mitigating circumstances setting out exceptional reasons why they did not keep to the parking conditions, POPLA cannot allow an appeal if a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions. POPLA is able to request that a parking operator cancels a parking charge if we consider that it has not given reasonable consideration to mitigating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances prevented the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions. However, the decision on whether or not to cancel the parking charge remains with the parking operator.

On this occasion, we are of the view the mitigating circumstances did not prevent the motorist from keeping to the parking conditions. Therefore, we have not referred this case back to the parking operator.''

Can you also access the evidence pack that might be still showing, and save the documents into Dropbox for us to see the 'case' and photos that PE threw at you?

Coupon-mad

I will take a closer look at everything tomorrow.

In the meantime, if anyone sends you a private message offering to help, delete the message and block them.

There are nasties who read this forum. Aggressive people from the wrong side, with a different agenda to us regulars.

[Deleted User]

ok thankyou for that advice- will def delete them.
I looked again at Popla. no evidence pack. all I can now see is what I previously posted. .
it does say

OPERATOR NAME
parking eye ltd
OPERATOR CASE SUMMARY
the operator didn't provide a case summary.

but that's it.
thankyou for all your help:):)

[Deleted User]

any opinions anyone? bit worried its getting near the submission deadline

nosferatu1001

You need to get a defence written. It's your court claim. Inaction on your part won't help.
There's a ton if help here, however the patient issues should be more than cjear - this wasn't parking, this was assisted boarding and alighting. No possible commercial justification exists fir s charge.

Coupon-mad

Here is the defence for us to comment on tomorrow:

DeledtedUser wrote: »

so here goes.!!!
**i have put in number 5 however that isnt really relevant to me is it? as already mentioned a while back i cannot contact the patient or provide their details( confidentiality rules. also the fact they speak VERY minimal english) so i cannot provide their leasehold or know the terms within it. maybe i need to tell them that in my defence though?
** also shall i add in somewhere the points i made in my earlier draft about ANPR monitoring, grace period, frustration of contract?

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
5. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

6. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Claimant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. Accordingly it is denied that:
7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant and the Claimant
7.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Claim - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of the Defence are true.

[Deleted User]

I'm aware it's my claim and I'm not expecting anyone to do it for me:( I'm merely asking people's opinions on wording before anything is submitted.

Coupon-mad

Replace 5 with wording saying:

5.1 The Defendant pulled over at the entrance area (not causing an obstruction) to ring the patient, as this was an emergency medical call out. The Defendant also asked a person who appeared to be a parking attendant in a hi-viz jacket, if the Defendant could park to attend urgently and briefly, to the medical needs of a patient in the flats. The Defendant was told: ''you can park if you are quick''.

5.2 The defendant then moved the car into a parking space and was only parked there for less than 15 minutes, which was believed not to be a contravention of the restriction. There were two parking events, therefore, and neither more than ten minutes in each place, for reasons of a medical emergency.

5.3 It is argued that it would be unconscionable for this charge to be pursued and upheld in the courts, under the circumstances, but ParkingEye dismissed the appeal made and asked for no evidence of the matter. The Defendant was able to show their work records (without any patient data of course, due to the DPA) but at no point did the Claimant consider the facts.

5.4 No signs were seen informing the Defendant that the 'total stay' rather than actual parking times (two stops in two different places) were being timed. The Defendant had no idea this area was covered by ANPR, nor how the data would be used, and in stopping twice for no more than 10 minutes each time, the Defendant believed they had committed no breach and certainly never agreed any 'contractual charge' which was not known about.


Then remove 8.2. It is a commercial site so you can't have 8.2.

Get this signed, dated and emailed to the CCBCAQ email address (Google it) IN THE MORNING or before 2pm without fail, so you can know it is in on time.

You are pushing it for time. Must be in Friday, then breathe!