Parking Eye and POPLA appeal

orange86

Hi, the driver stayed overnight at Premier Inn Leicester, however when they drove there they parked in the wrong section of the underground car park (St Georges's Tower).

At the entrance of the underground tunnel, there is a sign for pure gym and premier inn pointing towards the underground road. The driver either had the choice to turn left or continue straight in the underground tunnel. They turned left left and parked at hastings direct car park. They should have correctly driven straight (where Premier Inn is located) instead of taking a left.
.
They checked into the hotel and registered the car number plate onto their screen, about 3 hours later the driver is informed that they have parked in the wrong side of the car park so end up moving the car to the premier inn car park.

By the way, the PCN came within 14 days of the incident so no golden ticket.
As the registered keeper i received a £100 PCN from Parking Eye, £60 if i pay within 14 days.
I then appealed to Parking Eye and they told me my claim was unsuccessful.


I'm now looking to send the below to popla, can someone have a read for me please?


Parking Eye - Parking Charge Notice Reminder
Reference No: xxxx/xxxxx
Vehicle No: xxxxxx

A parking charge notice reminder was issued on 10 November 2018 to the keeper for the vehicle of xxxxxxx, for allegedly un-authorised parking at St George’s Tower, Leicester.

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and this fine be cancelled, on the following grounds:

1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces or at the entrance
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority


1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces or at the entrance

In addition, the signs at St George’s Tower car park are not prominent, clear or legible from the point of entering the underground tunnel. The signs were contradictory and crowded with different terms, so this is not an example of ‘plain intelligible language’, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

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.

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 mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. 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. 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.


2. No evidence of Landowner Authority

As ParkingEye Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unrelated copy ofthe contract with the landowner. I have not seen any evidence that Parking Eye has any right to issue parking charge notice.

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 POPLAbut 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 ofoperation

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

Parking Eye have not demonstrated that they had authority to issue parking notices for this site on the date that the PCN was given, and they have not provided a copy of the contract which would allow me to determine my liability and/or to request cancellation of the charge. Parking Eye have not provided me with a copy of the contract with the landowner or on site businesses, as required under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.


I would like you to consider sympathetically and thoroughly looking at the all the above points.

Thank you.

orange86

any suggestions?

KeithP

Why are you not using the extremely long poor signage appeal point from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread?

orange86

Hi Keith,

Thanks for the tip, i've looked at the post and the link: forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341

It looks very generic, is it worth slightly changing it make it reference to my case or just keep as is?
i can change my point 1 to have this long winded text instead.
also when i create a pdf, is it worth dropping in screen shots of images that are on the link above?

KeithP

Have a look at some of the lengthy illustrated PoPLA appeals linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES to get a good idea of what a winning appeal might look like.

Yes embed any and all pictures that help your case into your appeal pdf.

Guys_Dad

It looks as if the car park has different areas, each with its own restrictions. That is why the car finished up in the wrong section.

This is what you need to concentrate on and get as many pictures to support your argument. Map or diagram would also help.

The_Deep

If this went to court, PE might struggle. You made a minor human error and when you were made aware of it, put it right.

How can PE be so damaged by your inadvertent breach of contract, which some judges would think a trifling matter, (and we know the Law does not concern itself with trifles), as to awrd them £100. IMO it is a scam, complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.
M(.

orange86

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It looks as if the car park has different areas, each with its own restrictions. That is why the car finished up in the wrong section.

This is what you need to concentrate on and get as many pictures to support your argument. Map or diagram would also help.

unfortunately i live up north, and the incident happened in Leicester, so would be hard to get pics unless i traveled down again.
I've drawn a diagram of the car park and poor signage.

is it worth posting it all on here to get peoples view before submitting to popla?

KeithP

orange86 wrote: »

unfortunately i live up north, and the incident happened in Leicester, so would be hard to get pics unless i traveled down again.

Can google street view help with that?

orange86

hi keith, hopefully you can see the image on this google maps link: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6327539,-1.1247423,3a,18.3y,285.32h,84.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-DrHpEDQH9iTUjQxe7j0Jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The image shows the entrance to the underground tunnel which has a Premier Inn and Pure Gym sign.
However google maps wont let me click through into the tunnel, which is where the driver has the option of either taking a left and parking in the hastings direct car park or going straight on to the premier inn car park. The signage at this fork is poor.

KeithP

The third sign down in this image says:

NO PARKING
PRIVATE CAR PARK
NO UNAUTHORISED
VEHICLES

Looks very much like a prohibitive sign to me.