Parking Eye PR1 2UP

Fruitcake

Complain again to the BPA, and also the DVLA, that since PoPLA have lost your appeal, proof of submission screenshot attached, you consider this matter closed unless they want to explain yet again why MPs have stated in open parliament that the BPA are as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert.

Have you contacted Sir Greg Knight MP. How about contacting local and national news media?

Redx

post your new full draft popla appeal on here first, just for checking prior to submission as a pdf on their website

harrys_dad

Thanks for the responses. original POPLA appeal is as at post 5, so I was just going to add an initial paragraph about already appealing (nearly 2 months ago) and POPLA and Parking Eye both telling the BPA they have no record of my appeal, despite me having a screenshot saying it was successfully submitted. I also thought I should write back to Steve Clark saying how can there be no record when I have the screenshot and suggesting a better course would be for P Eye to drop their claim.

Umkomaas

Go for it, no harm to you. FightBack is the name of the game here.

Coupon-mad

harrys_dad wrote: »

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.

To add even more, you could add the new argument about the DPA and the ICO CoP, that I am trying as a new tactic with ANPR car parks, and adapt it to suit:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74138175#Comment_74138175

Show us your new draft, for comments. It is meant to be long, deliberately!

harrys_dad

Lots has happened in the last few days, with emails back and forth. Latest news is that the PCN has been cancelled "as a gesture of goodwill. When I have the full story I will post again. I do have to say however that Steve Clark at the BPA has been very helpful, responding quickly to my emails, contacting both Parking Eye and POPLA, and keeping me informed. He is reading this thread too.

twhitehousescat

harrys_dad wrote: »

Lots has happened in the last few days, with emails back and forth. Latest news is that the PCN has been cancelled "as a gesture of goodwill. When I have the full story I will post again. I do have to say however that Steve Clark at the BPA has been very helpful, responding quickly to my emails, contacting both Parking Eye and POPLA, and keeping me informed. He is reading this thread too.

ever the diplomat , very good at covering up cockups by BPA members and POPLa

harrys_dad

twhitehousescat wrote: »

ever the diplomat , very good at covering up cockups by BPA members and POPLa[/QUOTE

He hasn't covered it up, he has investigated and sorted it out. I know that doesn't resolve the underlying issues with these companies but at least it was helpful.

twhitehousescat

harrys_dad wrote: »

twhitehousescat wrote: »

ever the diplomat , very good at covering up cockups by BPA members and POPLa[/QUOTE

He hasn't covered it up, he has investigated and sorted it out. I know that doesn't resolve the underlying issues with these companies but at least it was helpful.

correct , far simpler , when MPs and press get involved to just say " "as a gesture of goodwill"

move along now ,,,,,,,,,,,nothing to see

beamerguy

harrys dad

Of course I am pleased for you but you know, PE do
not do "gestures of they goodwill" unless they are forced
to and that is the stupid phrase they use.
Never lose sight that these are scammers

As Steve Clark is reading this thread, he might like to
explain why ANPR companies like PE, who belong to the
BPA, think they can charge people when the CEO of the
BPA plainly said on BBC Watchdog on wednesday evening,
ANPR IS NOT 100% ACCURATE ?
And, when POPLA has admitted they don't understand

A statement that will no doubt become the attention of the courts.