Parking eye Manchester airport hotel

Kevmanc

Please help!
My partner received a parking charge invoice from parking eye for non payment of parking. I was the driver that day but she is the registered keeper. I went to the machine but had no cash and tried to pay by contactless card payment but nothing happened. I then tried to use text payment and sent a text of my Reg to the number shown. I tried twice to send it. I didn't realise until I had got home it had sent even though I had a full signal? I was there a total of 41 minutes from entering and leaving the car park as I went inside with my 2 children had a quick drink which I paid by card and left again. I did appeal to parking eye stating the above and it was rejected. I cant remember if I disclosed my name as the driver but the letter I got back was headed dear sir/madam and no name. I have been given a popla code so I just need to know what I'm to send as on popla appeal page it only allows 2000 characters and the templates on here are much longer. Am I doing sonething wrong??
Thanks

Umkomaas

Just construct your POPLA appeal in your word processor, then convert to a pdf file, attach it to the POPLA appeal portal (with your details showing on the cover page and something like 'Please find my appeal attached'). Submit it under 'Other' as reason for appealing.

Show us your draft for critique before submission.

KeithP

HAve you compained to the hotel management with a view to them cancelling the ticket because you are a valued customer?

Do that before submitting your PoPLA appeal - but don't miss your PoPLA appeal deadline.

Kevmanc

Hi thanks for quick response I have spoke to the manager and expressed my view as I've been since this visit and paid for parking in a different car though. He said there is nothing they can do? Popla appeal It is then. Which template do I need to use? Thanks

Redx

see post #3 of that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to construct your popla appeal

also read backwards in the POPLA DECISIONS thread and use those finished threads to also help you draft the appeal

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 House of Commons recently

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

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

Kevmanc

I cant seem to find it. Unless this is it


Re PCN number:

I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract. Your signage terms fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence of the parking charge, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, which is fully distinguished.

Should you fail to cancel this PCN, I require with your rejection letter, all images taken of this vehicle & the signs at the location that day. Do not withhold any images or data later relied on for POPLA/court.

Firms of your ilk were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The BPA & IPC were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Formal note:

Service of any rejection letter/POPLA code and/or legal documents by email is expressly disallowed. All responses to me from this point on, must be made by post. Regardless of any MCOL online/email system, service of any court claim must only be made by first class post to the latest address provided by me.

Yours faithfully,


THE NAME AND POSTAL ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER (OR THE HIRER/LESSEE) GOES HERE. THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

KeithP

That isn't in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

You appear to have found the right thread - that's good.

You now need to read the third post on that thread.

Redx

that appeal is in post #1 of that correct thread , not post #3

that is the parking company initial appeal template

you have a popla code so must now construct your own BESPOKE appeal to POPLA based on similar popla appeals posted on here by other members and the basics are explained in post #3 of that thread, with some examples etc

there is NO "one size fits all" template for popla appeals

Kevmanc

How about this? I found this one and edited to suit my situation etc....


I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxxx. I was NOT the driver.
I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:



1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions must be met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. ParkingEye have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’
The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period…is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

The NTK sent to myself as Registered Keeper arrived some 3 weeks after the alleged event. Even if they had posted it on the same day that they describe as the ‘Date Issued’ (which ParkingEye never do in any case at all because they use a third party batch-mail system, Whistl or iMail or similar, which adds up to a week before a letter is posted) it would be impossible for the notice to have been actually delivered and deemed ‘served’ or given, within the 'relevant period' as required under paragraph 9(4)(b).
This means that ParkingEye have failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply. Furthermore, it is clear that ParkingEye know this because they have used the alternative version of their template ‘Parking Charge Notice’ – the one with a blank space near the bottom of page one and no reference to ‘keeper liability’ or the POFA.
The PCN also fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe the unpaid parking charges that they allege were unpaid at the machine. 7(2) states: ’’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…’’
This NTK stated that ‘’either’’ there was not appropriate parking time purchased ‘’or’’ the vehicle remained longer than permitted (neither of which is a ‘fact’). In their rejection letter ParkingEye revealed too late that they contend that ‘insufficient time was paid for’ on the date in question. Not only is this not true but it is an alleged ‘fact’ that the NTK failed to state in the first place. If this operator should change their story yet again for POPLA and perhaps try to show that a ‘wrong VRN’ gave rise to the charge, POPLA please note that that would prove my point that this NTK has no ‘facts’ and also fails to describe those parking charges which they contend remain ‘unpaid’ by the driver.
So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver and there is no evidence of who that individual was - and that person was not me.


2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact 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.

Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and 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 charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, 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 – they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.

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.''

No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v 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.''
3) ParkingEye has no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

I do not believe that this operator has any proprietary interest in the land such that it has no standing to make contracts with drivers or to pursue charges for breach in its own name. I contend that they merely hold an agreement to maintain signs and to issue 'tickets' as a deterrent to car park users. I put the operator to strict proof otherwise because it cannot be assumed that any agent on site has any more than a bare licence.
I require an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the landowner contract (including the User Manual which forms a vital part of that contract). This is required so that I may see the definition of services provided by each party to the agreement, as well as any exclusions (e.g. exempt vehicles, users, days or times) as well as defined grace periods; the land boundary and the areas or specific bays enforced; the various contraventions and confirmation of the agreed ‘charge’ which may or may not be £100.
I do not believe that the contract allows ParkingEye to charge visitors £100 for a system or machine error. It is submitted that to charge for this event is highly unlikely to be a feature of the agreement with the landowner. That is why a generic, bland witness statement with a lack of definition of contraventions will NOT counter this argument.
Regarding Section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, I require evidence of full compliance:
“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.''


4) On this day there were issues with one or more of the parking machines.
The driver parked and upon trying to pay for parking had problems with the machine not accepting card payment. The driver then tried to use to text pay option and sent VRN twice to the number stated to which no reply was received. There was no instruction as to what to expect after the text was sent.
The system was complicated because drivers are expected to recall what time they arrived. Such systems have been criticised as unfair and not consumer-friendly. If a machine fault when this machine was certainly malfunctioning caused the system not to record the VRN correctly, or a fault with the card payment system then that is a matter within ParkingEye’s control, not the driver’s fault, as was found in Claim No C0FC15W4, ParkingEye v Ms G. before Judge Middleton at Bodmin County Court on 26/10/16:

Link...

In this case under appeal now, in all probability, there was a machine failure as in the above similar court case from last week.



5) Breach of the BPA Code of Practice on ANPR.
It is submitted that this charge was not properly given because it breaches the BPA Code of Practice regarding ANPR which requires checks to be made to ensure that a charge is ‘appropriate’ before issuing a PCN.
It would in fact be very easy to identify if this operator had carried out the necessary checks required in the BPA CoP, so I suggest these checks were not made and that the operator has contravened the requirements of professional diligence; a duty of consumer-facing service providers.
I put this operator to strict proof that these checks were made including CCTV of the driver at the machine trying to pay.
And the situation is fully within this operator’s control. As cameras are used to record number plates entering and leaving then they should be connected to the ticket machines. As a number-plate begins to be typed, a truly ‘connected’ system would find the ANPR image and simply require the driver to confirm that this is their vehicle, and the system would show the time of arrival (all details known to the system already).
To charge under these circumstances with a faulty machine, was not ‘appropriate’ or fair and contravenes the ANPR requirements of the BPA CoP.
Further, the signs fail to inform a driver what the ANPR data will be used for. When trying to pay in good faith by card and having sent a text with the VRN, the driver had no idea that secret camera data would later be used against him to bind him to a charge he knew nothing about and did not agree to. He thought the cameras were there for security, due to the lack of any other information (a black icon showing a camera communicates nothing).
Failure to tell a driver how the data will be used is an ICO breach AND a ‘misleading omission’ of a material fact – prohibited by consumer law, bringing me to my next point:


6). The charge is a penalty, breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is prohibited/unfair under the CPUTRs. It is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis.

I am having to guess, as the driver has informed me that the machine was not working properly. No evidence has been produced either way by this operator as to the cause of the issue nor any consistently-stated facts that made £100 charge payable.

This situation is an 'ordinary' contract involving no overstay and no breach of the legitimate interests of the landowner. This was a simple consumer/trader transaction trying to purchase a ticket for parking in good faith and produced by a machine and can be very easily distinguished from the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Indeed, the Judges' findings at the Court of Appeal stage - which were not disputed nor overturned at the Supreme Court, so the findings stand as part of that binding case law - fully support my view that the case of 'Kemble v Farren' remains the binding authority in support of this position. At 47 in the Court of Appeal Judgment, it was held:
''When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to the compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome. The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing. 141 at 148: “But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times, endeavoured to relieve, by directing juries to assess the real damages sustained by the breach of the agreement.” ‘’

And at the Supreme Court it was held at 14. ''…where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty… ''

At 22, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin’s speech in Dunlop and separated complex cases (Beavis) from ordinary/standard contracts with a transaction and tariff paid at a machine: ''Lord Dunedin's...four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts. But they are not easily applied to more complex cases.''

This is NOT a 'more complex' case by any stretch of the imagination. At 32, it was held that a trader, in this case a parking company: ''...can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

Clearly a charge ‘out of all proportion’ to the tariff - which was paid in any case - is an unfair penalty to the mind of any reasonable man. A huge charge arising under the excuse of an unexplained event such as a keypad or system error is unjustified and unfair, if the remedy is out of all proportion with the 'breach' and the (completely different) Beavis case does NOT apply to this argument.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 supports my position that the failure in performance of the keypad and/or failure by the operator to diligently carry out the necessary checks to ensure charges are not issued inappropriately, is unfair and unenforceable:

Link...

- Schedule 2: 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair':
’’A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations…’’
''A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.''

This charge is clearly punitive and is not saved from breaching the 'penalty rule' (i.e. Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty) by the Beavis case, which does NOT supersede other defences. It turned on completely different facts and related only to that car park with its own unique complexity of commercial justification. This case is not comparable.
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 also supports my position that this commercial practice of charging for their own system failure is unfair:

Link...

’’Prohibition of unfair commercial practices’’: 3.—
(1) Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.
(2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair.
(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—
(a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and
(b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer...
(4) A commercial practice is unfair if—
(a) it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5;
(b) it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6; ‘’

I have shown that ParkingEye have failed all of the above tests (my bold) which makes a charge under these circumstances prohibited and unenforceable. The Beavis case established that the penalty rule was certainly deemed ‘engaged’ in parking charge cases. Even if POPLA cannot consider consumer law (whyever not?) then the evidence shows that this charge is the very essence of ‘unconscionable’ which was the Beavis case definition of an unrecoverable penalty.


7) The signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces
The signs and the machine tariff board (and the small screen itself on the malfunctioning machine) were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of ‘plain intelligible language’, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

Link...

68 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.
It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case where the terms were concise and far clearer with no tariff lists which is the primary prominent information on the board. In the Beavis case, the signs were unusually clear. The Supreme Court were keen to point out within hours of their decision that it related to that car park and those signs and facts only so it certainly does not supersede any other appeal/defence about a different car park:-

Link...

The terms appear to be displayed inadequately at the machine, where only the tariffs are in comparatively large font. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording of the terms, which seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:-

Link...

As 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. However, if you…want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

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.''

Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the parking terms should have been simpler and effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear, concise and prominent in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'.
I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when parked. 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

Umkomaas

1) This Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) due to the dates and the wording used.

Check the Notice to Keeper (NtK).

Date of alleged contravention?

Date of Issue (shown on the NtK)?

Date the NtK was received by the Keeper?

Just to make sure we get this absolutely right - if this is a golden ticket.