ParkingEye Poplar Appeal - Pls Help

nosferatu1001

You can state that you left before the time on the ticket, and if the PPC wishes to use another time as the time the vehicle must have left site by, this must be brought to the drivers attention clearly and unambiguously, as it goes against the normal practice in a pay and display car park. Any ambiguity in terms - and I would go further and state the ticket is the ONLY certain term available to show by when the parking period ends - MUST be interpreted in the consumers favour (CRA2015) and there is no doubt here that the consumers favour is to use the time on the ticket. The appeal cannot be denied on this basis, as this goes against the wishes of parliament as expressed in the CRA 2015 (give the ref to ths requirement to rule in consumers favour) and is not up for interpretation by any non judicial body.

Castle

The Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted

AnnieLong

Thank you Coupon-mad, that's very good point I will include in the comments. And also for the tips about being short.

Thank you nosferatu1001, if you don't mind I may quote some of your wordings:)

Thank you Castle, I am reading the Consumer Rights now and may quote some of them, already found some that suit.

Thank you very much for your kind reply. Now I have some more ideas about what to comment and how. Really appreciate!!

nosferatu1001

reword as I may have the wrong pronouns in there - hard to write for someone else, on a forum, you slip into using "you" when you mean "i", and so on

AnnieLong

I will, thank you:)

KeithP

Section 69 of The Consumer Rights Act says:

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

AnnieLong

Great point KeithP, thank you so much for your input:)

AnnieLong

Dear All, before I submit the final comments to Parking Eye Evidence, could someone please help to check? I have to submit by today but would like a second pair of eyes. Many thanks.

---

Comments to Evidence:
A. Evidence showed no overstay as to ticket
B. No evidence of Landowner Authority
C. Inadequate signage, all out of date photos.

A.
1. Evidence G: (Page 51/51) – Ticket
“System generated print out” showed clearly -
Ticket purchase Time: 12.12-15.12 Car left site by 15.01 as in Evidence D (page 14/51). More time was purchased.

2. Evidence B: (Page 6/51) Grace Period
“ParkingEye operates a grace period” “ a minimum of 10 minutes or more ” As travel group including 2 young children it took longer than normal single person; with car key went missing caused further delay to purchase ticket as cannot secure the car. Once key was found car was secured - ticket was purchased straight away at 12.12 -15.12.
3. Evidence F (Page 31/51): Signage - How to Pay
“At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park”
All Signage said: pay before you leave
The driver did comply with all the terms as set out. Left site (15.01) 11 minutes earlier.

If the PPC wishes to use another time as the time the vehicle must have left site by, this must be brought to the drivers attention CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY, as it goes against the normal practice in a pay and display car park.
The ticket is the ONLY certain term available to show by when the parking period ends. Any ambiguity in terms MUST be interpreted in the consumers favour (CRA2015) and there is no doubt here that the consumer’s favour is to use the time on the ticket.

Section 69 of The Consumer Rights Act:
69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

B. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice- an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. Failed to provide evidence.

C. Inadequate signage, all out of date photos (2013, 2015 or latest 2017 March )and mis-presented dates in pics and notes. In evidence F (page 24/51 – 49/51)
No real evidence onsite on event date Aug 04, 2017. Those signage may well be demanded or not shown at all. There are no real evidence onsite on event date.

Original PCN letter (page 8/51) didn’t state the Reason at all. So 1st appeal was made as non-payment. After 3 weeks cannot recall - mixed the £4 for 3 hours to 4 hours.

AnnieLong

Dear All,

Good news not only to me but to a lot others who are experiencing the same problem/frustration with ParkingEye PCN Tower Road.

Thank you for everyone who has contributed to this success, Coupon-mad specially gave out a lot valuable tips and led me the way through all these. Thank you!

Please kindly find the Popla Decision as below, for everyone who is considering appeal for reference. The most important is the Written Contract & Witness of the owner and PE. Hope you will be successful as well! Thank you for this site and everyone who spend time answering other people's questions. You all made our life much easier.

===================================================================

Decision: Successful
Assessor: xxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was on site for longer than the time paid for.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant says that they believe that the operator has not applied a sufficient grace period. They say that the vehicle circled the car park twice to find a space and two accidents happened during the time it was parked. When the vehicle arrived, the car key was lost, and this took some time to find. The appellant says that on the way back to the vehicle, one of the children fell and broke their knee, which needed treatment at the site. • They say that they put the parking operator to strict proof that they have the authority to operate on site. • The appellant says that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge amount. The appellant has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper they received from the parking operator.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the time paid for. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says they put the parking operator to strict proof that they have the authority to operate on site. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states in section 7.1,“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided either a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, or a witness statement to confirm that they have the authority to issue PCNs on site. As I am unable to determine that the operator has the authority to issue PCNs on site, I can only conclude, in this case, that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

======================================
Thank you Popla as well!! xxx

JustThisGuyYouKnow

Currently appealing for the same location and Operator has failed to provide proof of landowner authority here as well.

Could you please provide the POPLA code so we can use as a reference?