ParkingEye PCN Beaconsfield Road Southall

badbrains

Dear MS experts
I'm a second time user. I successfully appealed my fist PCN with the excellent help on here.
I'll try to keep this brief.
My girlfriend (RK) got a PCN on Beaconsfield Road. I was the driver. She was a passenger.
The car park was not lit - it was extremely dark and we never bought a ticket. We were there approx 35 mins. The PCN arrived within 5 days and a reminder came after that. I wrote her appeal using the first appeal template. I wrote she was the RK and didn't name the driver. I attached pictures of the dark car park and signs - none of the 4 floodlights worked. One sign had fell off behind a bin. I also included a signed letter from the retailer saying they agreed for the PCN to be cancelled. The retailer is not the land owner. PE rejected the appeal. I'm writing my POPLA appeal (due today, sorry).
I will appeal based on below taken from a resource on this forum (if any are not valid please let me know)

1. Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate).
4. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements
5. Vehicle Images contained in PCN: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance
6. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate
7. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data

My query is this. I've read about a Parkingeye "Golden Ticket" PCN. I think I have it. Can I use this please, and if so, how?
I'm tried to attach the images but it wont let me.
Thanks all

KeithP

In response to your earlier post a couple of months ago you were given clear unambiguous guidance not to give away the driver's identity.

Please edit your post accordingly.

Only the keeper can take advantage of a golden ticket.

It is your girlfriend that needs to appeal this, not you - but does she still have time to do that? What was the date of the alleged infringement?

badbrains

Thanks KeithP.
I only drafted the appeal. My girlfriend sent the appeal. The driver was never declared.
The date of alleged infringement was 16 Sept. We're at the POPLA appeal stage. We still have time (last day to submit today).

KeithP

Then let us see your gf's proposed PoPLA appeal before she sends it.

There is a PE golden ticket sample PoPLA appeal point linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

badbrains

PARKING CHARGE INFORMATION
Further to the recent Parking 'Charge Notice, this Parking Charge remains outstanding and you have until 04 October 2018 or the amount due will increase.
On the 16 September 2018 vehicle XXXX entered the 6 Beaconsfield Road, Southall car park at XXXX and departed at XXXX on 16 September 2018.

The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car park, states that this is private land and that the car park is managed by ParkingEye Ltd. In addition the signage states that, as a paid parking car park, a Parking Charge is applicable if the motorist fails to make the appropriate tariff payment. The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound.

By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking Charge is now payable to Parking Eye Ltd (as the Creditor).

We would like to remind you that, if you were the driver at the time of the parking event you are required to pay or appeal the parking charge.

THE CASE LAW
The most significant Judgment in relation to the enforceability of Parking Charges issued for breach of contract on private land is that of the Supreme Court in Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67. The Supreme Court found in ParkingEye's favour, stipulating that the Parking Charge was not a penalty in law and did not constitute an unfair term. This Judgment delivers a binding precedent in respect of the value of the Parking Charge. The Judgment can be found by visiting the news section of our website: "Supreme Court uphold Court of Appeal Judgment".

APPEALS & COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
All appeals and complaints must be submitted in writing and should be sent to one of the addresses below. All appeals must be received within 28 days from the date of our initial correspondence. Please include all information to assist with the appeal. This may include: a store receipt from the day in question; proof of purchases via a bank statement etc. Please note Parking Eye may be unable to return original documentation and therefore request only copies are sent to us. If the appeal is unsuccessful, you will be advised in writing and you will also be provided with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique appeal reference. Please note: POPLA will not accept an appeal, if you have not appealed to Parking Eye in the first instance.

Where you explicitly disclose information that is considered sensitive (e .g. about a medical condition), we will process that information, as outlined in our privacy policy, unless you withdraw your consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
Please visit. xxxxx
Please write to: Appeals Department, ParkingEye, P.O. BOX 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT
Online: xxxxxx
Parking Eye will only accept and respond to appeals in English.

PRIVACY INFORMATION
The data we process for the purpose of issuing a Parking Charge Notice includes the recipient's name and address, images of the vehicle, its details and movement whilst using the car park, and the Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). We will also process this data for the purpose of reviewing and responding to appeals, and seeking payment of the Parking Charge amount, including via the use of collection agents and/or legal action (where required). When processing this data, ParkingEye Ltd. is the Data Controller.
For more information, including details about your rights as a data subject and your right to object (where applicable) , please visit our website at xxxxxx, where you can also complete our online privacy query form . Alternatively, you can write to us at ParkingEye Limited, PO Box 565, Chorley, PR6 6HT. If you believe that your details have been obtained fraudulently or misused, please contact us straight away. If you are the registered keeper, you may also choose to write to the Release of Information, Fee Paying Enquiries Section, DVLA, Swansea SA99 1AJ. You should include details about how the data has been misused and the VRM. The DVLA will investigate all allegations where information has been requested unlawfully and where appropriate, refer to the Information Commissioner for prosecution. If you are not satisfied with the way the DVLA has handled your complaint, you should contact the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF.
Parking Eye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue, Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454

badbrains

I will post shortly thank you. I've copied the text on rear of PCN to show if this is Golden Ticket.

badbrains

I mistakenly thought I had a "Golden Ticket". I realise now I was looking at the Reminder and not the original which we somehow lost. Here's a summary what's happened up to now.
1. Parkingeye rejected the initial appeal and gave a POLA ref.
In my original appeal the driver was never declared. I also included a signed letter from the retailer agreeing the PCN should be cancelled based on poor lighting.

2. I drafted a POPLA appeal and sent it (below).

3. Parkingeye have submitted their evidence (below) which contend the points I raised in my POPLA appeal. They include pictures from over 2 years ago of signs and lighting taken during the day. The very lighting which I said isn't working and submitted pictures of.

POPLA have said I have 7 days to respond. I will argue that my current evidence disputes the state of their signs and lighting. Is there anything else I can add bearing in mind I can't add any new evidence?

Thanks

badbrains

POPLA appeal that was submitted below

I contend that as the keeper I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:


1. The address of the alleged incident is 6 Beaconsfield Road. However, this address is Dr Batra's surgery. Parkingeye are conflicted as to the correct location of the alleged incident.
2. I attach a signed letter from the proprietor and owner of the retailer that was visited by the driver. The retailer agreed the PCN should be cancelled due to the poor signage. A copy of this was supplied to Parkingeye.
3. Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.
4. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
5. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.
6. 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.
3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3) states:
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so
that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during
the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes
place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct
lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly
or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material”

There is no lighting on the signage, the closest public light is further down the
road. All items above indicate the contravention of BPA’s Code of Practice (18.3): “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”


The main car park signs are inadequate and illegible. There are four floodlights - none illuminate. Signs are in disrepair, removed and obscured from view. The image attached shows a close up of the main car park sign in the same lighting conditions as the date/time for which the PCN has been issued. It is unremarkable, small and not illuminated.
It cannot be reasonably assumed (particularly given this case took place after sunset in a car park without its own lighting or without any signage being adequately lit) that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, observed one upon entrance to the
car park, nor parked near one. When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to see the signs.

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, 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 Code of Practice) 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).

Section 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.


5. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach
BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:
“It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or
registered keeper data, you must:
be registered with the Information Commissioner;
keep to the Data Protection Act;
follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data;
follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the
use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal
data such as vehicle registration marks.
The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of
Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at:
https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf
The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:
“This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment
including:
• Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”
“the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations
under the DPA. Any organization using cameras to process personal data should
follow the recommendations of this code.”
“If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate
whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”
“You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to
address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective
solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on
individuals”
“You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the
scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a
privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact
assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper
assessment.”
“If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you
undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its
introduction is proportionate and necessary.”
“Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce
parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies
how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to
minimize these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when
a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”
“Note:
... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality
and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon
fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations
should therefore also consider these issues.”
“A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the
surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a
lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that
if Parkingeye wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy
impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is
proportionate and necessary. It also states that Parkingeye must regularly
evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.
It therefore follows that I require Parkingeye to provide proof of regular privacy
impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and
BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact
assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary
and proportionate”.
The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:
“5.3 Staying in Control
Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance
system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the
code’s requirements in practice. You should:
• tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it
should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their
request;”
“7.6 Privacy Notices
It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in
relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a
requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to
ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance
system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground
level or more prevalent then it may first appear.
One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s
right of subject access.”
Parkingeye has not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the
keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). In fact, Parkingeye has not
stated a Privacy Notice or any wording even suggesting the keepers right to a SAR on
any paperwork, NtK, reminder letter or rejection letter despite there being a Data
Protection heading on the back of the NtK. This is a mandatory requirement of the
ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice (5.3 and 7.6) which in turn is mandatory within the
BPA’s Code of Practice and a serious omission by any data processor using ANPR,
such that it makes the use of this registered keeper’s data unlawful.
As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and
in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law,
POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

6. 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.''

badbrains

Parkingeye evidence:
Rules and Conditions
This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park displaying the terms and conditions of the site.
Evidence G
System generated print out showing that the motorist’s vehicle registration number does not appear in our systems on the date of the event.
Please find enclosed a letter of authority (LOA) signed on behalf of the landowner showing that on the date of the parking event ParkingEye had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle. (See Section G)
Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.
Grace Period
ParkingEye operates a minimum grace period of ten minutes or more on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether, or not, they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.

A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 30.2 of BPA code of practice which states ‘If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes’.
Further Information
Initially, ParkingEye would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality, and have built up this expertise with almost 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. ParkingEye is regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.
Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The British Parking Association Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras at Section 21. We comply fully with this;
21.1 – You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce paring 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
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. The process that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.
21.4 – It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• • be registered with the information commissioner
• • keep to the Data Protection Act
• • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• • follow the guidelines from the information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.

21.5 – We have an expectation that when Operators are using cameras to manage parking, they will sign up to the Surveillance Camera Commissioners Code of Practice and adopt the Guiding Principles which are detailed in appendix F of the Code. We have passed both our British Parking Association and DVLA audits and follow all DVLA requirements concerning the data that we obtain.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks.. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team at ParkingEye Head Office. If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, Parking Charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a Parking Charge has been issued incorrectly, and ParkingEye goes to great lengths to ensure that all Parking Charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to ParkingEye, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that Parking Charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.
Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”
ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions"
"If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking"
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for, the purpose of car park management, to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so, as to allow ParkingEye to make a request for registered keeper from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the ANPR system will be used to enable ParkingEye to take enforcement action against those who breach the parking terms and conditions in operation.
ParkingEye operates a minimum grace period of ten minutes or more on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether, or not, they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.
ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations.
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background.
There is sufficient ambient lighting on site and we have highlighted some of the lighting poles within the images. (Enclosed)
As the images show, the vehicle had its headlights on. This would have rendered the many signs in the car park visible. (Please see Section F)
Please note that the Letter of Authority provided to demonstrate ParkingEye’s authority to operate at this site and issue Parking Charges is effective from 10th July 2015, as the date the Letter of Authority was signed. It should also be noted that it is widely accepted as a standard industry practice and in the County Court that the date of signature of any such agreements is the effective date from which the agreement commences and the authority is given.