Help on Comments on ParkingEye Evidence

IamWood

Its a private land on the Southend Airport. In this case its the retail park on site. PE has provide the following claim.

Is anything I can comment on it? Thanks

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.

Coupon-mad

The whole of an Airport site is not relevant land. Any roads are public highway, and none of it is a place where a keeper can be held liable under the POFA.

However, convincing a slower POPLA Assessor about that fact of law is another matter!

fisherjim

IamWood wrote: »

Its a private land on the Southend Airport. In this case its the retail park on site. PE has provide the following claim.

Is anything I can comment on it? Thanks

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.

Which I believe is a Red Herring, the majority of airports are private land, (Luton is still owned by the council, though privately managed), railway carparks are in general private land.


However where bye-laws exist on that land for what ever reason they are not relevant land for private parking companies, the authority to operate is no different to one of their other traders trying to relieve you of money.

nosferatu1001

Its PE not lying, just not telling the whole truth either.

IamWood

Please can anyone advise for the comments on the evidence provided by PE?



1. Grace Periods. ParkingEye failed to comply with The BPA’s Code of Practice (13). ParkingEye claimed that “a grace period is given to all motorists before a parking Charge is issued” in the evidence pack. However, ParkingEye deliberately did not mention the minimum of 10 minutes grace period enforced by BPA. The BPA’s Code of Practice (13) states that there are two grace periods, one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and another at the start. The duration of the visit in question was only 6 minutes 21 seconds, which is well within the recommended grace period.

2. Inadequate evidence of Landowner Authority. The document provided by ParkingEye was signed by an assistant surveyor, which is not a legally binding document and does not meet the mandatory requirements of the BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 7.

3. ParkingEye failed to provide evidence to confirm that the images of the vehicle contained in PCN complies with the BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a.

4. ParkingEye failed to provide copies of the signs at the location that day (08/08/2019). The images provided are dated 30/04/2019 and 01/05/2019, respectively. Even on these images provided, the signs are difficult to read, due to the tiny font of the terms and conditions, not to mention to understand the terms and conditions being imposed.

5. ParkingEye failed to provide evidence of a legally binding contract having been formed between the vehicle keeper and ParkingEye, nor evidence of any damage the driver caused by entering the car park during the period in question (only 6 minutes and 21 seconds) that might otherwise justify a Parking Charge of £100.

IamWood

Just received my POPLA decision -- Unsuccessful!


Much gutted, what should I do now?



Here is the decision:



Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
XXXXXX
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without the appropriate permit or authorisation. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. He states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. He states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. He states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. He states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. The appellant has provided a document in which he elaborates on the above grounds in detail, along with a photograph of the PCN and a copy of the operator’s letter rejecting his original appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been identified. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant for the charge as the registered keeper in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I am satisfied from the evidence provided that the operator has adhered to the Act and I will therefore consider the appellant’s liability for the charge as the registered keeper. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 16:36 and leaving the site at 16:42. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of six minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signs installed on the site and a site map showing where on site each sign is located. Signage clearly states: “Permit Holders & Service Vehicles Only … This area is for the use of service vehicles & permit holders only … Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list. The appellant states that he is not liable for the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle. As detailed above, I am satisfied from the evidence that the operator is entitled to pursue the appellant for payment of the charge as the registered keeper of the vehicle in line with relevant legislation. The appellant states that the operator did not allow the relevant grace periods. I accept that on entering a site, a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park. The evidence shows that the driver remained on site for six minutes which, given the clarity of the signage on site and the site’s relatively small size, I am not satisfied was reasonable. The appellant states that the operator does not have relevant authority from the landowner to operate on site. The operator’s evidence includes a statement signed on behalf of the landowner to confirm that the operator is contracted to operate on site. The appellant states that the images on the PCN are not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The specific section of the Code to which the appellant refers states that images “must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered.” Having reviewed the images on the PCN, I am satisfied that they meet these requirements. The appellant states that no contract was formed between the driver and the operator. As detailed above, I am satisfied that signage on site made the terms sufficiently clear. I am therefore satisfied that a contract was formed between the driver and the operator by way of the signs on site. I am satisfied from the evidence both that the terms of the site were made clear and that the driver breached the terms by parking without a permit or authorisation. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.

KeithP

IamWood wrote: »

Just received my POPLA decision -- Unsuccessful!


Much gutted, what should I do now?

Read again that section of post #3 of the NEWBIES thread following the heading:

What will happen if I lose at POPLA or IAS?

Redx

If popla are stating that you as keeper are liable under legislation , which legislation ?

If it's airport land subject to bylaws then POFA does not apply and so there is no legislation

Check the popla decision for errors and report any to this lead adjudicator John Gallagher , but no moaning , just show the factual errors

Ditto for any grace periods , show the times and the relevant part of clause #13

No ranting , no moaning , no complaining for complainings sake , just cold hard facts about the true facts and incorrect assessment by the assessor

IamWood

What about sending a letter to the chief accessor John Gallagher?

Dear John Gallagher

In relation to the POPLA appeal of Verification Code: 6062479522, I have received notification that this appeal has been rejected by caseworker Paul E Walker.

However, the rejection letter does not address the crucial points made in my rebuttal. For example:

1) ParkingEye failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice (CoP) 13.

BPA's Code of Practice (13.2) 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.”

This is in addition to allowing time to read signs, terms and conditions. No PCN should be given until at least 10 minutes has elapsed.

In addition, there are two grace periods. One for a driver to get out and read the signs (CoP 13.1) and one to get back in the car and drive out again (CoP 13.4).

Mr Walker has only referred to the first grace period in the CoP by saying "a driver must be allowed a reasonable grace period to read and understand the terms and decide whether to park". However, Mr Walker omitted to mention the second grace period allowed by the CoP, which is a minimum of 10 minutes.

I would like to point out that the duration of visit in question (only 6 minutes 21 seconds from 08/08/2019 16:36:21 to 08/08/2019 16:42:42) is well under the recommended grace period. Just to:

1) Enter the car park, drive around and find a space to stop
2) Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions
3) Read the sign and the full terms and conditions
4) Decide not to park
4) Get back to the car, make sure it was safe to manoeuvre and drive out to exit
5) Check if the public road was clear, wait for any traffic, then leave the car park safely


2) No Evidence of Landowner Authority

Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice outlines to operators:

"If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.""


Here I list a judgement given by your colleague Michael Pirks (adopted from https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com) for a similar case:

---
The operator has provided with me a Confirmation of Authority document when names the landowner and that the site is designated as a permit only site however, this document does not include signatures by both parties, setting an agreement in place. I would expect the operator to provide a copy of the contract and clear boundaries which have bit been provided. If the operator was to provide with a landowner agreement document which outlines the full terms of the site and was signed by both the operator and landowner, this would help me determine that the operator had full landowner authority to manage the site. As such, I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority. I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
---

Mr Walker says ParkingEye has provided "a statement signed on behalf of the landowner" but there is nothing from the landowner themselves. The Company Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and witness from each party for a contract to be valid. A mere statement from an alleged agent of the landowner fails to meet these requirements. Consequently, ParkingEye has failed to show they have a valid contract with the landowner to operate.

Mr Walker's decision shows a lack of consistency.


These points about are critical to my case. Please, could you assess my appeal?

Many thanks

Redx

Seems to me you missed the POFA point , the legislation point , which legislation ? , because if it's POFA and bylaws apply , then POFA doesn't