Parking Eye Tower Rd Newquay

Coupon-mad

I just wish I had evidence of what we paid at the ticket!

No, you really don't, that could lead to a rushed appeal blabbing about the driver, and proof of paying is NOT what wins at POPLA (honestly). That would be barking up the wrong tree, you've already been told why you will win and on what basis (the POFA para 13/14).

I wasn't the driver but I am the registered keeper.

No you are not, I also already told you:

You will win as long as you appeal as hirer/lessee when you get the PCN (notice to hirer)

You only have to use Edna Basher's appeal template (bottom of the first post in the NEWBIES sticky). This is already set out for hirer/lessees to win, either now or at POPLA.

And at POPLA stage I did say come back for advice.

Tedster201

Hello again,

Today I received my letter from PE to say my appeal has been unsuccessful and I now have a POPLA code. In the letter they have stated that they have no records of payment (my husband paid in cash on the day but we have no proof as the ticket is long gone)
They have stated that 'as a gesture of goodwill we have extended the discount period for a further 14 days' which sounds like a corrot on the end of a stick that I'm not going to take.
Just to remind you, this is a lease car and I sent them my own version of Edna Basher's template to them to get this response. Huge thanks to Edna Basher!

I plan to do the online POPLA appeal process. Any advice oin advance would be most welcome

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Tedster201 wrote: »

I plan to do the online POPLA appeal process. Any advice in advance would be most welcome

Thanks

As you've clearly found your way (well done) to the Newbies sticky, that is the place to visit once more and this time look for help and advice (as well as searching the forum for other successful examples) for composing PoPLA appeals. Post it here for critique before sending and make sure you don't miss the deadline.

Tedster201

So this is how far I've got so far, thanks to some links on here. I intend on also attaching a photo of the signage that I found on here which shows the tiny writing at the bottom of the sign. I'm all ears...(thanks in advance, please be kind)

Appeal Re: POPLA Code XXX Vs Parking Eye

Vehicle reg XXX

I received a letter dated [XXX] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to ParkingEye was submitted and acknowledged on [XXX] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [XXX].
I contend that I, as the keeper on the day in question, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

*As the hirer of this vehicle, I was keeper on the day in question for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

*ParkingEye!!!8217;s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14 as no further documents were received by me apart from the Parking Charge Notice. Therefore ParkingEye has forfeited its right to keeper liability. In the PCN they state !!!8216; We have been made aware by the vehicle hire / lease company that you were the hirer / lessee of the above vehicle at the time of the parking event and they have provided your details, together with a copy of your signed hire agreement and statement of liability!!!8217; If this is the case why have these not been forwarded to me with the PCN as required by POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 (2)?

*By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking as required by PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9:
!!!8220;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of
parking to which the notice relates;!!!8221;
The PCN only states !!!8216;On (dateXXXXX), vehicle XXXX entered (locationXXX) car park at (timexxxx) and departed at (timexxxx) on (date xxx)
It is therefore required that ParkingEye provide evidence that the car was parked during this time

* The PCN does not state the offence, but merely vaguely states !!!8216;By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted!!!8230;.!!!8217; No evidence was provided of either insufficient parking tafiff or non payment of parking tariff. The only evidence is as above, ie. a photo of the car in question allegedly entering and leaving the car park

*Signage at this car park is neither clear or easily read on entry to the car park, therefore is non compliant with BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice . The driver would be unable to agree to the terms & conditions for this reason and therefore no contact could be agreed between the driver & ParkingEye.

KeithP

Tedster, did you look at any of the PoPLA appeal texts linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

Here's just one of them - not ParkingEye but should still offer good guidance:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/p7ltb9rcr6zy7kn/Appeal_stage2_POPLA_ECP_draft5.pdf?dl=0

These words from that same NEWBIES post should help too:

ParkingEye (make sure you search it as ONE word as shown) can be best handled by searching for the relevant place as a keyword, so 'ParkingEye POPLA Aire Street' or 'ParkingEye Tower Road POPLA' or 'ParkingEye POPLA Hospital' would be good choices of keywords to find very recent examples.

Immediately after that quote from post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ thread there is further guidance on how to beat ParkingEye.

Tedster201

Thankis KeithP, I must admit this took me a good couple of hours to put together as I was struggling to find suitable links to threads that made sense to me and my situation. Any assistance finding relevant quotes would be great as the labyrinth of this Forum is huge and the info complex. I will again take a look at your suggestions

Tedster201

Good Afternoon all,
I've tweaked and retweaked this and I'm now waiting for my friend, who just so happens to be in Newquay, to send photos of the signage for me to attach to this. Your critique is much anticipated, I hope I've got it nailed:

Appeal Re: POPLA Code XXX Vs Parking Eye

Vehicle reg XXX

I received a letter dated [XXX] acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to ParkingEye was submitted and acknowledged on [XXX] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [XXX].
I contend that I, as the keeper on the day in question, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. As the hirer of this vehicle, I was keeper on the day in question for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I was NOT the driver, no assumptions on who the driver was can be made and I will not be divulging that information at any point. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.
Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015: Understanding keeper liability - !!!8216;There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver.!!!8217;

2. ParkingEye!!!8217;s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA, Schedule 4, Paragraphs 13 and 14 as no further documents were received by me apart from the Parking Charge Notice. Therefore ParkingEye has forfeited its right to keeper liability. In the PCN they state !!!8216; We have been made aware by the vehicle hire / lease company that you were the hirer / lessee of the above vehicle at the time of the parking event and they have provided your details, together with a copy of your signed hire agreement and statement of liability!!!8217;.
If this is the case why have these not been forwarded to me with the PCN as required by POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 14 (2)?

3. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking as required by PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9:
!!!8220;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of
parking to which the notice relates;!!!8221;
The PCN only states !!!8216;On (dateXXXXX), vehicle XXXX entered (locationXXX) car park at (timexxxx) and departed at (timexxxx) on (date xxx)
It is therefore required that ParkingEye provide evidence that the car was parked during this time, and this evidence has not been offered.

4. The PCN does not state the offence, but merely vaguely states !!!8216;By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted!!!8230;.!!!8217; No evidence was provided of either insufficient parking tafiff or non payment of parking tariff in the PCN. The only evidence is as above, ie. a photo of the car in question allegedly entering and leaving the car park.



POFA Section 4, 7(2) states:
!!!8217;!!!8217;The notice must - (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose and the other facts that made those charges payable...!!!8217;!!!8217;

5. In the rejection letter from ParkingEye dated 23.5.18 it states !!!8216;Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question!!!8217;. The BPA!!!8217; s Code of Practice requires regular checks to be made on ANPR systems. Had these checks been made, ParkingEye would have been able to register that a parking payment was indeed made on the day in question and a ticket was issued by the machine and displayed in the vehicle in question. Therefore, can ParkingEye provide evidence that these checks have been carried out, and explain why the action of purchasing a parking ticket has not been recognised by the ANPR system?

6. Signage at this car park is neither clear or easily read on entry to the car park, therefore is non compliant with BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice . The driver would be unable to agree to the terms & conditions for this reason and therefore no contact could be agreed between the driver & ParkingEye.
Here, the signs are sporadically placed, and are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, with too many words and letter crammed into a small space, drastically reducing the legibility of the signs, thus making it impossible to read them before deciding to enter the car park, parking up and leaving the car

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print amogst a substantial amount of text, over crowded in a spall space. Areas of this site are unsigned so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could not read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

BPA!!!8217;s Code of Practice 18.3 states:

!!!8216;Signs must be conspicuous & legible & written in intelligible language, so they are easy to see, read and understand.!!!8217;

Please refer back to this similar POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

Therefore the terms of using this car park are displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. It is a scientific fact that letters appear smaller when mounted high up. This signage is mounted on a high pole, well above standing height. A driver will be much lower down in the car on approach to the entrance, therefore making the signage even more inadequate. To summarise, small letters, high up, overcrowded at a distance requiring a step ladder are inadequate for anyone with normal driving vision. How can a driver enter into and agree to a contract if they don!!!8217;t know what the contract is?


So, for this appeal, I put this operator to provide 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 of 'the sign' 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.
It!!!8217;s clear the ANPR system is not effectively linked with the ticket machine, and in the absence of this proof of a ticket being purchased, where is the proof of the car being parked at all? The lack of evidence to prove the actual breach of a contract, that a driver cannot agree to in the first place due to poor signage, calls in to question the validity of the charge.
Above all, I state that I, XXX XXX, was not the driver on the day in question. The Driver will not be identified on any further correspondence. The Notice to Keeper was not supported with sufficient documents required by POFA Schedule 4 and therefore is invalid.

Tedster201

Hi, Please see what you think to by 2nd draft for POPLA appeal.....thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Change this to hirer, avoid calling yourself the keeper (no need and it confuses it):

I received a letter dated [XXX] purporting to be a notice to hirer (NTH) but with no attachments. [STRIKE]the registered keeper.[/STRIKE] My appeal to ParkingEye was submitted and acknowledged on [XXX] but subsequently rejected by a letter dated [XXX].
I [STRIKE]contend that I, as the keeper on the day in question,[/STRIKE] am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1. As the hirer/lessee of this vehicle, I cannot be held liable without a NTH with the mandatory hire firm attachments, none of which were served by the operator. [STRIKE]was keeper on the day in question for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.[/STRIKE]

I was NOT the driver, no assumptions on who the driver was can be made and I will not be divulging that information at any point. As the [STRIKE]keeper[/STRIKE] hirer/lessee of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

Tedster201

Thanks for your help Coupon Mad (and all other contributors) , I knew there would be things that needed a tweak, I think I'm good to go. I'll let you know what happens next.