Parking Eye PR1 2UP

harrys_dad

Hi everyone, a search of the forum for the address above gives details of the main car park by Aldi etc, but this alleged offence took place in a smaller car park across the road, entered from a different place. Details of what exactly happened are contained in point 1 of the draft appeal.

The timeline is as follows:

Alleged offence : 21/11/17
Initial PCN issued to keeper 28/11/17
Online appeal filed on PE website using MSE template appeal text 06/12/17
PCN Reminder (does this count as NTK?) received 11/12/17
Appeal rejection letter and POPLA ref issued 22/01/18 (The keeper was on holiday and did not receive this for a few days so exact date of receipt is not known)
Deadline for POPLA appeal 19/02/18? (28 days from 22/01/18?)

Reading the stickies, and particularly one which had a recent successful POPLA appeal against PEye, here is a suggested template for appeal.

Many thanks for your help and support here, and apologies if there are things here that could have been found in the stickies, as I know that really irritates people. This is the best effort! Any suggested amendments gratefully received.

POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper of vehicle...... and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.

1. The alleged infringement of the regulations is that "insufficient time was purchased. The information from ParkingEye shows that the car entered the car park at 18.44.01 and left at 22.39.24. The part of the large sign at the far end of the car park referred to on section 2 shows that the charge for up to one hours parking is £1. It also shows that the evening session runs from 1900 to 0700 for which there is a charge of £2. From the information that it was possible to read on the sign it is legitimate to believe that paying a total of £3 would be sufficient to cover £1 for the period 1841 to 1900 and £2 for the evening tariff , which certainly covers the time until the car left the car park at 2239. Unlike almost every other car park in the country the ticket issued by the machine shows the time of arrival only, and gives no indication of the finish time for the amount paid for. Consequently it is perfectly reasonable on the basis of the information visible at the time of parking to believe that parking had been purchased to cover a period up to 0700 the next morning.

2. Insufficient signage.
There are no readable terms and conditions of parking displayed at the entrance to the car park, and it was completely dark at the time of the entry to the car park. Parking Eye's own images of the vehicle included on the PCN have no signage visible in said images. Indeed everything in their images is completely black except the car registration plate and the headlights. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the signs. The sign with details of charges is positioned at the far side of the car park and would only be visible to the driver once they left the car. The one sign with some details on it is illuminated at the very top, but the sign is very high up and much of it is barely legible at night. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.

3.Delayed Response to Appeal.
Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice which Parking Eye must abide by. This states that members of the BPA must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eye's site on the 06/12/17, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 22/01/18, when they rejected the initial appeal

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
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 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 Code of Practice 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
Also Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator 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 the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator 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 Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
when the judge said the evidence form 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.

Coupon-mad

1. The alleged infringement of the regulations is that "insufficient time was purchased. The information from ParkingEye shows that the car entered the car park at 18.44.01 and left at 22.39.24. The part of the large sign at the far end of the car park referred to on section 2 shows that the charge for up to one hours parking is £1. It also shows that the evening session runs from 1900 to 0700 for which there is a charge of £2. From the information that it was possible to read on the sign it is legitimate to believe that paying a total of £3 would be sufficient to cover £1 for the period 1841 to 1900 and £2 for the evening tariff , which certainly covers the time until the car left the car park at 2239. Unlike almost every other car park in the country the ticket issued by the machine shows the time of arrival only, and gives no indication of the finish time for the amount paid for. Consequently it is perfectly reasonable on the basis of the information visible at the time of parking to believe that parking had been purchased to cover a period up to 0700 the next morning.

Is this bit specific and true to your case, or the one you copied from?

Did you watch the Parliamentary debate on Friday, linked here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5787731

Watch it in full ad read the full transcript also linked there, and use it as evidence because the MPs remarked that parking firms do set out complicated days/times/night-time rates to deliberately confuse consumers so that PCNs can be issued due to terms being unfair,unintelligible, and ambiguous for any reasonable interpretation.

Also add another point proving to POPLA with Google streetview screenshots embedded directly into your word document, showing that this is not the right location. As such, the location stated on the Notice to Keeper (the first letter that arrived) is wrongly identified and so the NTK does not meet the requirements of the POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9.

Then add the fact that there is no evidence as to who was driving, so a flawed NTK with a wrong location, cannot be considered to pass the test of compliance under the POFA and can't hold a keeper appellant liable.

Umkomaas

3.Delayed Response to Appeal.
Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice which Parking Eye must abide by. This states that members of the BPA must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eye's site on the 06/12/17, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 22/01/18, when they rejected the initial appeal

They have 14 days to acknowledge (but it's a very loose condition that no one gets excited about if it's missed) but 35 days to respond with a decision on the appeal. So concentrate on the 35 days as it took them 48 days (by my calculation date-to-date).

But I've never seen a POPLA decision focus on this. Leave it in though as it forces PE to state why they failed this part of the Code of Practice.

harrys_dad

Thank you Umkomaas for your help. The paragraph in my post about the daytime/nighttime payment is specific to this case. I am away for the weekend but will view that debate and add a section to that paragraph quoting from it. My comment on the car park for that postcode related to finding similar cases on here. The letter from parking Eye had the additional information "Hill Street".

I am away for the weekend but will do my best to add additional information as soon as possible, in order to make sure my POPLA appeal is lodged in good time, taking account of all the really helpful advice here.

harrys_dad

Thanks to Coupon Mad too. A bit has added a bit to the first paragraph, and a little about the time delay. Is this ok now as it needs to be submitted Friday? Can it submitted online? I assume the details should be in the appeal notification form P Eye.

Final Draft:

POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx
I am the registered keeper of vehicle...... and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.

1. The alleged infringement of the regulations is that "insufficient time was purchased. The information from ParkingEye shows that the car entered the car park at 18.44.01 and left at 22.39.24. The part of the large sign at the far end of the car park referred to on section 2 shows that the charge for up to one hours parking is £1. It also shows that the evening session runs from 1900 to 0700 for which there is a charge of £2. From the information that it was possible to read on the sign it is legitimate to believe that paying a total of £3 would be sufficient to cover £1 for the period 1841 to 1900 and £2 for the evening tariff , which certainly covers the time until the car left the car park at 2239. Unlike almost every other car park in the country the ticket issued by the machine shows the time of arrival only, and gives no indication of the finish time for the amount paid for. Consequently it is perfectly reasonable on the bais of the information visible at the time of parking to believe that parking had been purchased to cover a period up to 0700 the next morning.
There was a debate in Parliament on this matter very recently, and the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill was passed by MPs. The confusion around daytime/night-time charges was cited within the debate as an example of a "system set up to fail". This was exacerbated by the ticket showing the time of purchase and giving no indication of the time purchased or the time that the ticket was valid for.
2. Insufficient signage.
There are no readable terms and conditions of parking displayed at the entrance to the car park, and it was completely dark at the time of the entry to the car park. Parking Eye's own images of the vehicle included on the PCN have no signage visible in said images. Indeed everything in their images is completely black except the car registration plate and the headlights. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the signs. They are positioned at the far side of the car park and would only be visible to the driver once they left the car. The one sign with some details on it is illuminated at the very top, but the sign is very high up and much of it is barely legible at night. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.
¬3.Delayed Response to Appeal.
Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice too which Parking Eye must abide states that members of the BPA must acknowledge or reply to the challenge
within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eye's site on the 06/12/17, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 22/01/18, when they rejected the initial appeal. It is also within the code of practice that a decision on the appeal should be reached within 35 days. In fact it took 48 days.

4. No evidence of Landowner Authority
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
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 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 Code of Practice 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
Also Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator 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 the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator 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 Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed
when the judge said the evidence form 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.

5. The location of the car park indicated on the original parking charge notice is Corporation Street Preston PR1 2UP. This is not the correct location for where the vehicle was parked. The vehicle was in fact parked in a small car park off Seed St, close to the location given but completely separate. There is no evidence as to who was driving, so a flawed NTK with a wrong location, cannot be considered to pass the test of compliance under the POFA and cannot hold a keeper appellant liable.

Redx

how to appeal to popla is covered in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread post #3

You save the final draft as a pdf and choose OTHER on the POPLA website, attach the pdf and submit it - its rarely different so will apply in your case like almost all the rest

harrys_dad

Thanks very much Redx, I knew I would miss something on the stickies eventually

KeithP

I would adjust point 5. to something like:

5. The location of the car park indicated on the original parking charge notice is Corporation Street Preston PR1 2UP. [STRIKE]This is not the correct location for where the vehicle was parked.[/STRIKE] The vehicle has never been parked in that car park. On the day in question the vehicle was [STRIKE]in fact[/STRIKE] parked in a small car park off Seed Street[STRIKE], close to the location given but completely separate[/STRIKE]. There is no evidence as to who was driving, so a [STRIKE]flawed[/STRIKE] NTK with a wrong location, [STRIKE]cannot be considered to pass[/STRIKE] clearly fails the test of compliance under the POFA and cannot hold a keeper appellant liable.

Don't even suggest they might be only slightly wrong.

harrys_dad

Final appeal submitted online, with amendment as suggested by Keith P above. Thanks everyone for your help, I will keep you informed.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences. Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, who have also been reported to the regulatory authority. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.[/FONT]

harrys_dad

So, POPLA appeal submitted online 16/02/2018 as mentioned above. I arrive back from a two week trip today to find another letter from Parking Eye headed "LETTER BEFORE COUNTY COURT CLAIM", saying I did not appeal to POPLA within the 28 day limit or pay the charge. I go on to the POPLA site to find that my appeal and evidence have been received and that it is currently at stage 2, "Operator Information and Evidence" which is "in progress" (as it has been ever since 16/02/2018). Are Parking Eye, as the operator, allowed more than 28 days for this stage?

I assume I ignore the recent letter from Parking Eye, and just add this latest !!!! up to the pile of evidence I will use if the POPLA appeal fails and they take me to court?