IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Parking Eye - Bloom Street Manchester - POPLA STAGE

Hi all,

I have an ongoing dispute with ParkingLie who have rejected the initial appeal. The basis of the rejection is non-purchase of parking for 11 minutes. The driver was unable to pay for parking as they had no change for the meter and could not download the app and pay by telephone option due to mobile phone dying. There was no signage on the enternace to inform the driver that they could not pay by card, thus leaving the driver with no other option to leave the site. The points were highlighted to these scam artists and they still rejected the appeal.

I have had previous battles with these goons but it was about 3 years ago so i am mega rusty and not upto speed with current challenges to beat these people into submission so would really appreciate some guidance from you loverly people.

I've read as much as i can and drafted a popla appeal which would like to send as i am out of the 14 day grace period that they have kindly given me to pay the reduced rate of £60..

If someone could have a gander at my draft it would be greatly appreciated.

I have some images which i will also try to upload once i figure out how to do it...

_______________________________________________________________


Dear POPLA,
I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX to lodge a formal appeal against the PCN issued by Private Eye to myself as registered keeper on the XXXX 2019 for the alleged breach of parking conditions at the Britannia Bloom Street car park on the XXXX. I must firmly state that although I am the registered Keeper I was NOT the driver at the time of this alleged offence. I reserve my right as registered keeper not to provide the name and address of the driver as I have no legal obligation to do so.

I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and kindly request that they are all considered.
1) No Card payment method to purchase parking on the site
2) Experiencing technological difficulties
3) 'No Grace Periods - breach of BPA CoP'
4) ParkingEye has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
5) No evidence to show that the APNR system is reliable nor accurate.
6) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
7) No Planning Permission from Manchester City Council for Advertising Consent for signage



1- No Card payment method to purchase parking on the site

ParkingEye has rejected the appeal as they state that no parking was purchased on the day despite payment methods being available. The ONLY methods of payment at that particular site is through mobile device or cash which the driver was unable to make payment by due to experiencing technological difficulties (unable to download the app and then mobile phone battery dying) and not having and cash on their person on that day in question. Thus making it impossible for the driver to purchase parking whether that be for 11 minutes or 11 hours. Parking Eye have no signage clearly stating that the site does not except card payments on entry to the car park. (See Fig# 1 )

The time the vehicle entered the car park was XXXXX, and exited the site at XXXX. And sought suitable parking at an alternative site which accepted card payments XXXX (see Fig #2).

Due to the limited information displayed on the signs the driver would have not used the site if it clearly stated no card payment was accepted. (Fig#4,5,6)

2- Experiencing Technological Difficulties

The driver had experienced technical difficulties as the mobile device was unable to download the app due to administrative restrictions (see Fig#3). When attempting to call the Paybyphone number the mobile device ran out of battery. Thus leaving the only other method to purchase parking by cash which the driver did not have on the day in question. Leaving the driver with no other choice other than to leave the site. The length of time this had taken the driver to enter and exit the site is said to be 11 minutes, which is plausible considering they had to find a space, locate the signage and read it (which is dotted around the site), locate the pay station, walk back to the car, operate the phone, attempt to download and try to operate the app or call to purchase parking, consider alternative options and then leaving the site.

This could have potentially been completed within the minimum grace period of 10 minutes however the driver states that it had taken them longer to read the signs and contemplate alternative options to pay for parking on the site. The driver is questioning the accuracy of the ANPR system as it may be configured incorrectly thus resulting in the reported time by ParkingEye alleging that the time taken was in fact 11 minutes which falls outside of the minimum grace period of 10 minutes which would trigger a potential fine.

3- Grace period: BPA Code of Practice - non – compliance

The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end of the parking event (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the start.

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.1) states that:
"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."

BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
“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.”

The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that the Grace Period to both enter and leave the car park should be a minimum of 10 minutes at either end of the alleged parking event. Whilst 13.4 does not apply in this case (it should be made clear - a contract was never entered in to), the reasonable grace period of 10 minutes on the start and end of the parking event, means the total time for being within the associated area is -9 minutes.

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at the British Parking Association (BPA): “The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket.”
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

On this instance the driver decided not to park at the site due to not being able to purchase parking and left believing that they were within the 10 minute grace period.

4- ParkingEye has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)

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. 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 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 ParkingEye 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 POPLAAssessor 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- The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The ParkingEyes' Notice to Keeper (NtK) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:
“On [DATE] the vehicle: XXXXXXX entered XXX Road – Manchester, at [ENTRY TIME] and departed at [EXIT TIME] on [DATE].”
These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By ParkingEyes' own admission on their NtK, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;
“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order.
I require ParkingEye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (10 minutes and 48 seconds apart), it is vital that ParkingEye produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

6- 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 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—such as any ‘genuine customer’ or ‘genuine resident’ exemptions or any site occupier’s ‘right of veto’ charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site—is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
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 authorised on the material date, 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 but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put ParkingEye 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

7- No Planning Permission from Manchester City Council for Advertising Consent for signage

ParkingEye do not have Planning Permission for Advertising Consent for signage exceeding 0.3 m2.
Anyone who displays an advertisement, or uses an advertisement site, or knowingly permits someone else to do so, without the consent required for it is acting illegally.
Displays which are unauthorised until consent is granted will amount to a criminal offence and can be subject to prosecution in the Courts where substantial fines can be imposed.
I believe ParkingEye are/have been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment for which no planning application is valid.
I request ParkingEye provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to Advertising Consent was gained for signage exceeding 0.3 m2, prior to the date to which this appeal relates (12/01/2019)
«13

Replies

  • Cant upload the images as im a new user :eek:
  • D_P_DanceD_P_Dance Forumite
    11.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Have you read this?

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164&highlight=

    Complain to your MP. On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

    Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    19.5K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Forumite
    A few spelling errors, you might want to check through it all. You might look at Frustration of Contract due to your technological difficulties (phone battery dying is your problem, not PPC's).
    The ONLY method[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] of payment
    not having any cash on their person
    that the site does not accept [STRIKE]except[/STRIKE] card payments
    is reliable [STRIKE]n[/STRIKE]or accurate
  • edited 30 March 2019 at 1:08PM
    pysspdpysspd Forumite
    28 Posts
    Forumite
    edited 30 March 2019 at 1:08PM
    Just a couple of observations really. My case is much like yours it appears, with PE is for a total 13 minute stay, so I am arguing that 10 mins can be accounted for reading and understanding signs and deciding NOT to accept the terms and 3 minutes as the time taken to leave the car park. I will be pointing out that in addition to reading the major contractual terms the keeper also needs to be aware of the privacy notices (given that ANPR is being used). These privacy notices are often located in a different place to the notices giving the terms which further adds to the time needed to decide whether to accept or decline the 'contract'. I am also arguing that the physical location of the entrance with a pedestrian crossing a few meters away from the entrance meant that exit was delayed by 3 minutes. I don't know about the location of your car park, so no idea if something like this would be useful. Like you I am arguing that no contract was entered into - but I do wonder if the 3 mins exit time can actually be a frustration of contact given that I am also arguing that no contract was in fact formed. I would imagine a 1 'additional' minute stay in your case (or 3 mins in my case) would otherwise be regarded as de minimus by a court, but obviously this caries a bit of a 'litigation risk', as I suspect that that Popla are unlikely to accept it. Anyway, will be watching with interest - it looks like a pretty comprehensive appeal.
  • Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    113.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Can you show POPLA proof that the driver went and parked elsewhere within minutes of leaving? That proves the driver could not accept this parking contract and had to leave and use another site.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Hi I parked my car at Doncaster rovers stadium as my son was training there, he had he session and went home. This was in June July August time 2017, I'm not quite sure on details as I had a breakdown in October 2017 and was in hospital for a month. It's my mums car she started getting letters and we decided to ignore them. She then got a letter saying they were going for a ccj, we ignored that too, now she has revived a 'NOTICE OF INTENDED ENFORCEMENT' what can we do at this stage this is really worrying my mum and stressing me out... I'm desperate please help
  • D_P_DanceD_P_Dance Forumite
    11.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite
    All the PE signs that I have come across fail imo to be able to form a contract. They are either too high, the font is too small, or they are too wordy, or all of the above, read this thread and complain to your MP.

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5972164&highlight=

    Complain to your MP. On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

    Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    38.5K Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Butch80 wrote: »
    Hi I parked my car at Doncaster rovers stadium as my son was training there, he had he session and went home. This was in June July August time 2017, I'm not quite sure on details as I had a breakdown in October 2017 and was in hospital for a month. It's my mums car she started getting letters and we decided to ignore them. She then got a letter saying they were going for a ccj, we ignored that too, now she has revived a 'NOTICE OF INTENDED ENFORCEMENT' what can we do at this stage this is really worrying my mum and stressing me out... I'm desperate please help

    You need to start a new thread of your own - this is someone else’s.

    Please state in your new thread the name of the PPC, who you’ve received letters from, and in particular who sent the ‘NOTICE OF INTENDED ENFORCEMENT’ letter.

    In a new thread of your own please, no further inputs on this thread. Thank you.
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • Thank you for the responses, its greatly appreciated.

    @DPDance - Thanks for the MP angle, I may need to use that in the future, at the moment i just don't have the time to explore that.

    @Le_Kirk - I've made those changes to the grammar, for the second draft.

    @Pysspd_ Our cases are pretty similar the location is on a side road and can get very busy during peak times which would add a considerable amount of time exiting the site as there is only one point of entry and exit. Some good points I've missed so will add that the drivers appeal.

    @CouponMad _ yes the driver has the proof of using alternative parking and there is a photo evidence which will be added to the document.
  • edited 12 April 2019 at 6:09PM
    Coupon-madCoupon-mad
    113.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 12 April 2019 at 6:09PM
    Some good points I've missed so will add that the drivers appeal.

    @CouponMad _ yes the driver has the proof of using alternative parking and there is a photo evidence which will be added to the document.
    Great!

    Make this very clear in a separate point, and show us your new draft with all changes:

    The driver did not accept any parking contract as there were no spaces but they did then drive out and find alternative parking within minutes (? round the corner/a quarter of a mile away/whatever you want to say) at xxxx location. The ticket for this alternative parking contract with another operator elsewhere, is shown for POPLA to see that the appellant's version of events is the preferred one and the truth, proving no contract or licence to park was available from the first operator on this occasion. Thus the PCN was not properly given.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Boost your Nectar points

Get up to £25 in bonus points

MSE News

Ask an Expert: Scams

Watch MSE Katie's answers to your questions

MSE Forum

Hot Diamonds 40% off code

Including already-reduced outlet stock

MSE Deals