Popla Evidence Rebuttal Crewe Alexandra

helpjack

Hello,

I received a parking ticket from Parking Eye for Crewe Alexandra car park.

I have appeal firstly directly to Parking Eye using the blue template and then to Popla.
Parking Eye have now uploaded an evidence pack.

This includes a signed land owner contract which is heavily redacted.

I have come up with the following rebuttal. I'm a bit concerned that I may be screwed although the signage is awful and the fine way out of proportion with the car parking charge.

I'm not sure what the best way to upload the evidence pack is though.


1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Parking Eye’s evidence states “this Parking Charge was not issued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012” which is confirmation they are not using POFA2012 and have therefore failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver, so I am not liable for this charge.

2. 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.
ParkingEye have supplied no evidence as to who the driver was on the date in question.

3. ParkingEye Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.
ParkingEye have supplied a redacted contract by way of evidence that they had authority to issue and pursue Parking Charges on the date in question. Top of the contract shows no start date, the space is left blank so we can not assume the contract is currently active

The contract is blurry and only predictable areas are legible with the majority of the terms blanked out. Zooming in makes no difference

Companies Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and a witness. This contract complies with neither and therefore fails the requirements.
ParkingEye have failed to submit satisfactory evidence to prove they had authority to issue Parking Charges.

4. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver.

1. Parking Eye’s evidence includes photos of parking signs and a signage plan. This backs up my assertion that the signage in this Car Park is unclear, confusing and insufficient.
2. The terms and conditions on all of the signs included in ParkingEye’s evidence is in such a small font it cannot be read. This backs up my assertion that the signage in this Car Park does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver.
3. The signage map shows there are not signs displayed at all the pedestrian exits on the exit to Gresty Road.


Taking the above points into consideration, I respectfully request the appeal to be upheld.

Coupon-mad

That's 2322 characters, so too long. Remove this waffle:

Zooming in makes no difference

Companies Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and a witness. This contract complies with neither and therefore fails the requirements.
ParkingEye have failed to submit satisfactory evidence to prove they had authority to issue Parking Charges.

on the exit to Gresty Road.

Taking the above points into consideration, I respectfully request the appeal to be upheld.

You will win if POPLA can see this is a non POFA PCN. Put ''NOT'' in capitals!

helpjack

Ok, I think i may need to change the first paragraph. I've adapted another rebuttal and gone through everything but the first paragraph, I wasn't too sure about.

But in the original appeal rejection from PE they state they have complied with POFA 2012. So its not correct. Therefore, I'm reliant on points 2-4.

I've pasted their evidence response below. There are several pages of attachments in addition.

'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.

The facility to pay by phone is also available at this site on the provision of the full, correct vehicle registration and payment card details.

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 copy of the contract signed by the property manager. This has been redacted for commercial purposes as the full contract cannot be provided to the motorist.

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 Clause 13.2 of the BPA code of practice states ’…you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken’. ParkingEye can confirm a grace period is given to all motorists before a Parking Charge is issued.

In relation to clause 13.4, which states: ‘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’, this does not mean that a second grace period must be given. The BPA has confirmed that only one grace period ought to be applied per a motorist’s stay onsite.

ParkingEye can confirm that the grace period on site is fully compliant with the BPA code of Practice.

Further Information 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.

Please be advised that in clause 4.4 of the redacted contract inserted into Section G, the clause advises the following:

‘This Agreement may be terminated by either party on expiry of the Initial Term by the provision of at least thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other party, prior to expiry of the Initial Term (for each year of the Initial term). If no such notice of termination is received by either party further to 4.4 or 4.5, this Agreement shall automatically continue in force for a further period equivalent to the Initial Term under the same terms and conditions contained herein unless terminated pursuant to Clause 12, and this same Agreement renewal process shall apply for every subsequent cycle thereafter.’

ParkingEye can confirm this contract has not been terminated by either party, so the contract was effective on the date the charge was incurred.'

Coupon-mad

But in the original appeal rejection from PE they state they have complied with POFA 2012. So its not correct.

Really?

It's not about what they SAID, it's about whether the PCN was a POFA one! You know from the NEWBIES thread post #3 about POPLA, how to check this easily, as I give a link to a picture of one that is NOT compliant.

helpjack

Yes, agreed.

I have adjusted slightly based on your comments. Many thanks.

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Parking Eye’s evidence shows the notice to keeper is NOT compliant with POFA2012 and have therefore failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver, so I am not liable for this charge.

2. 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.
ParkingEye have supplied no evidence as to who the driver was on the date in question.

3. ParkingEye Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.
ParkingEye have supplied a redacted contract by way of evidence that they had authority to issue and pursue Parking Charges on the date in question. Top of the contract shows no start date, the space is left blank so we can not assume the contract is currently active

The contract is blurry and only predictable areas are legible with the majority of the terms blanked out.

4. Signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and was not prominent enough to form any contract with a driver.

1. ParkingEye’s evidence includes photos of parking signs and a signage plan. This backs up my assertion that the signage in this Car Park is unclear, confusing and insufficient.
2. The terms and conditions on all of the signs included in ParkingEye’s evidence is in such a small font it cannot be read. This backs up my assertion that the signage in this Car Park does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver.
3. The signage map shows there are not signs displayed at all the pedestrian exits

Umkomaas

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Parking Eye’s evidence shows the notice to keeper is NOT compliant with POFA2012 and have therefore failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver, so I am not liable for this charge.

To make sure you've got this right, where/how have PE failed to meet PoFA requirements?

helpjack

I've updated the first paragraph.

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The notice does NOT describe the amount of parking charges due from the driver at the end of the parking period and the amount of those charges that are unpaid. Parking Eye’s evidence shows the notice to keeper is NOT compliant with POFA2012 and have therefore failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

I'm submitting at the latest tomorrow. Fingers crossed.

Umkomaas

helpjack wrote: »

I've updated the first paragraph.

1. The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The notice does NOT describe the amount of parking charges due from the driver at the end of the parking period and the amount of those charges that are unpaid. Parking Eye’s evidence shows the notice to keeper is NOT compliant with POFA2012 and have therefore failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

I'm submitting at the latest tomorrow. Fingers crossed.

Sorry, but that's unlikely to persuade POPLA. Substantive PoFA failures tend to centre around whether the PoFA warning was given in the NtK 'if after 29 days ....' usually on the reverse of a PE NtK, and/or PE missing the 14-day deadline from the day following the parking event for the NtK to be 'given'.

helpjack

Well the date of the alleged contravention is 25/10. NTK issued on 2/11 which means it has arrived in within 14 days.

Umkomaas

helpjack wrote: »

Well the date of the alleged contravention is 25/10. NTK issued on 2/11 which means it has arrived in within 14 days.

Within PoFA time requirements. I'd be pretty certain too that the PoFA warning was included on the reverse side of the NtK?

helpjack

The POFA warning is also there. The paragraph that states 'you are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given .........