ParkingEye POPLA Southampton Leisure World

yamsfordays

Hi all,

I received a PCN from ParkingEye (not the golden ticket) through the post on May 5th because my car had been parked at Leisure world Southampton and the driver did not pay for parking (It's supposed to be free for customers if you put your reg number into a terminal).
After receiving the PCN I went into the store the driver was a customer of and asked if they could do anything and they said that it's likely they would take care of it.
I can provide an online order receipt for the cinema tickets (provided to me by the driver, of course).

I then wrote in the appeal box on ParkingEyes website that Odeon would be contacting them on my behalf to deal with it. Unfortunately I think they interpreted that in itself as my appeal and swiftly rejected it.

I've read up on the POPLA appeals process and was hoping for some feedback on a draft appeal before I send anything off, I've cut together most of the template points with a few bits added and changed.

I noticed that the back of my original PCN, under the parking charge information, it states that the maximum stay in the car park is 0 hours and 0 minutes so I've written a little about that, whether it's relevant or not.

I was also unsure whether the fact that they have no financial loss could be considered an argument as all the driver failed to do is enter the reg number on a terminal.

I've read that they are supposed to be pretty long but I would appreciate any and all feedback on this!

yamsfordays

*****************************************************************************************

DRAFT POPLA APPEAL

****************************************************************************************


PCN Number: XXXXXXXXXXX
POPLA Ref Number: XXXXXXXX


Dear Sir/Madam,
I write with regard to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd to me as the registered keeper of vehicle VEHICLE REG for an alleged parking infringement at Leisure World, Southampton. I wish to appeal the £100 PCN raised on 05/05/2018.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle I am able to speak on behalf of the individual who was driving at the time. As the driver entered the Leisure World complex they had to negotiate a junction and a pedestrian crossing, while remaining vigilant to the possibility of pedestrians crossing their path. The driver glimpsed a banner high up on the complex wall with several lines of writing on it, and was only able to read the top two lines before returning his attention to the road ahead. From the wording on the banner the driver understood that parking was free for patrons of Leisure World. Parking up shortly before the start of the film the driver exited the vehicle and walked quickly to the front entrance of the cinema and did not look for or become aware of any parking enforcement signage. Having revisited the complex I am now aware that there is signage inside the cinema, but this does not suggest that cinema customers are required to use it. It simply states “Car Parking” written in blue illuminated letters which is not in high contrast to it’s surroundings and blends in with advertisements, posters, etc. Further to this, based on it’s position it is very easy for this terminal to be blocked by queueing cinema customers. To an individual who has read signage stating that they are not required to pay for their parking, the phrase “Car Parking” above an arrangement of tablet computers does not suggest that they are required to do anything.
Based on the above, the driver was given to believe that no payment was necessary but was not aware that they were required to input the vehicle registration number into a terminal. The driver was a customer of the Odeon cinema at the time of the alleged incident and the signage was clearly inadequate. The driver was, in fact, entitled to four hours free parking at the time and evidence has been attached, showing the order confirmation of the tickets to see a movie at Odeon. The PCN states that the vehicle remained in the car park for 3 hours and 3 minutes, which is comfortably less than the permitted 4 hours.
I submit the following reasons to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
1. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time.
2. No Contract was entered into between the ParkingEye and the Driver or Registered keeper.
3. PCN contained confusing terms in regard to accepted terms of parking
4. the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.
5. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
6. No evidence of landowner authority





1.The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-bpa-compliant signage leading to the driver not being aware that a parking contract was being offered at the time.
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount that ParkingEye is now demanding, rather than simply enter the vehicle registration number into a terminal, which would have cost £0.00.
Further to the above, 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 parking charge itself.
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £100, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:

LINK

In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

LINK

This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is far too small to be read by a customer who has been lead to believe that their parking is free. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking 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 (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

This case is more similar to the signage in 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.''

From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

LINK

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

LINK

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

...and the same chart is reproduced here:

LINK

''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

LINK

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to 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.
Upon personally investigating this car park following the PCN, I found that the hanging banner to the left of the entrance to the car park reads “LEISURE WORLD CAR PARK”, followed by “FREE FOR LEISURE WORLD CUSTOMERS ONLY”. Unfortunately, I found it was very difficult to read past the first two lines on the banner whilst entering the car park in a moving vehicle. This is demonstrated in the attached dashcam footage which was recorded shortly after receiving the PCN. The banner is also located in a position which would only be read by a driver entering the car park and cannot even be seen from inside. The banner is only visible very briefly as it is driven past but is also elevated on the side of a building to a height in which it becomes more difficult to read.
Further to this, I found that there are a number of parking spaces where, if parked in, there is a clear route to the cinema and restaurant area without any signage facing the driver, as shown in the attached photograph.

2. No Contract was entered into between the ParkingEye and the Driver or Registered keeper

Although I was not the driver of the event, I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. ParkingEye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.

Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.

I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

3. PCN contained confusing terms in regard to accepted terms of parking
A PCN should contain clear language in regard to the necessary terms of parking at the location of the alleged incident, although I have found this to not be the case. The reverse of the PCN I received clearly states that the maximum time any vehicle can stay in the car park is 0 hours and 0 minutes, which is either incorrect or every vehicle that enters is in violation of this term, even without an opportunity to read any signange. This information is in direct disagreement with any signage which states that a patron can pay to park for more than 0 hours and 0 minutes. It also states that the signage in the car park has the same information; “In addition the signage states that, as a paid parking/patron only/maximum stay car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment, fails to enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal in reception, or if the vehicle remains within the car park for longer than the 0 hours 0 minutes max stay time.”
I take issue with this not only because this would mean that every person who parks in this car park is eligible for a £100 Parking Charge but also because this demonstrates how unfamiliar ParkingEye are with their own signage. The language used suggests that this Parking Charge is not a charge that is levied in order for ParkingEye to recoup monies lost through the driver’s parking nor any missed payment as the driver did not have to pay to park in the first place. Stating that 0 hours and 0 minutes is the maximum stay time is also in violation of the British Parking Association Code of Practise Section 13.1 – 13.4:
13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.
It is clear that 0 hours and 0 minutes is far from a reasonable grace period if that is in fact ParkingEye’s policy. Otheriwse, the PCN I received has incorrect information regarding signage at the car park which could be interpreted as misleading for a customer attempting to appeal a Parking Charge.

To be continued as it's too long for one post...

yamsfordays

...and the rest of it....

4. the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

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. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

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. They cannot.

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
'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. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.'

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

5. ANPR Accuracy and compliance

I require ParkingEye Ltd 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 my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that ParkingEye Ltd 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 ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from 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.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye Ltd in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators!!!8217; Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
!!!8226; be registered with the Information Commissioner
!!!8226; keep to the Data Protection Act
!!!8226; follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
!!!8226; follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner!!!8217;s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.

6. No evidence of landowner authority
As ParkingEye Ltd 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 ParkingEye 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 in small print 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 CoP 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

It is for the above reasons that I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed, and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours Faithfully,
MY NAME GOES HERE

KeithP

I would suggest that you go back to Leisureworld and further push them to resolve this.

Do that before you send your PoPLA appeal. PE are going to be more obstinate once a PoPLA appeal has been submitted.

As soon as you submit your PopLA appeal, PE get charged £27.

yamsfordays

Thanks,

I'll go and visit them this evening and see if they can do anything more.

KeithP

But keep an eye on your PoPLA appeal deadline date - 30 days from the date of your initial appeal refusal letter.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

yamsfordays

Hi all,

I went back to Odeon and they said they would chase it up for me and I should expect to hear back this week. It's getting close to the end of the week and my POPLA deadline is getting very close.

Can anyone offer some feedback on my draft appeal letter? I'm going to have to send it off on Friday so any feedback would be great!

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

No you won't, if day 28 is Friday. POPLA codes last 32 days so you surely have the whole weekend to reply and ask us for final comments.

POPLA can be submitted online on day 32. Not not past midnight or gremlins stop it!

yamsfordays

Oh, I was concerned because the rejection of my initial appeal states I only have 28 days and so does POPLAs website.

Anyway, I was only asking as it's getting pretty close and I'd rather not wait until the last day for feedback on my appeal.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

You should wait, honestly, we know exactly what we are doing.

If POPLA has started, the Odeon WILL NOT be able to get it cancelled because PE will refuse. For the sake of waiting and chasing up the cancellation by Monday morning, that is the order in which to proceed, I promise you.

Disastrous the other way around.

We do know that POPLA codes last 32 days and we also know they 'say' 28!