Southampton Town Quay, Parking Eye

Umkomaas

pinheadplanet said:

I thought 5 was a big deal seeing as it amounts to issuing tickets 'illegally', I thought was my main defence

Leave it in then, it's already written, see what POPLA (don't) say. If you're very brave and so certain that it is your 'main defence' (as John McEnroe would say, 'Are you serious'?), why not do a single-point appeal based exclusively on that? (Rhetorical suggestion, especially as I guarantee that will lose you the appeal!). 

pinheadplanet

OK sorry, I wasn't meaning to be rude. Everything I have read is to make the appeal as long as possible. So just the first three points are sufficient?

Umkomaas

pinheadplanet said:

OK sorry, I wasn't meaning to be rude. Everything I have read is to make the appeal as long as possible. So just the first three points are sufficient?

I never for one moment thought you were rude. You ought to see some comments thrown at volunteer regulars trying to help people out a hole they've dug for themselves if you really want to know what 'rude' can be on this forum! 😁

Points 1, 2 and 3 are very strong points, and in many cases at Southampton  Town Quay, PE have withdrawn once they see those key points covered in a POPLA appeal. Perhaps you would show us the full details you've written for each point - do a separate post for each point and I'll go through each one with you. 

By all means add points 4 and 5 to your appeal, on a 'never mind the quality, feel the width' basis, but there's no need for us to read those in detail - just be sure you've put nothing in either of them that identifies the driver. 

Incidentally, I previously drafted a final paragraph for you to append to your initial appeal, did you use it?

pinheadplanet

Yeah, I did put that paragraph Umkomaas.

I'll list the points individually...

pinheadplanet

Wouldn't let me add all of point 1 so:

1). This Parking Charge Notice was issued outside of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 timescale - Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (4 and 5) clearly states that this must be within 14 days. This Parking Charge Notice was served 64 days after the alleged ‘Date of Event’ and therefore a full 50 days beyond its relevant notice period.

Please see highlighted below the relevant section from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012:

Below this I literally added all of POFA 2012 with section 9 highlighted.

pinheadplanet

2). Parking at this site is subject to Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (“the ABP Byelaws”); this location is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012.

Please see below for details of the Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003.

My apologies for the small text but a copy of the document can also be found here at this web address:

https://www.abports.co.uk/media/h10piawn/southampton-harbour-bye-laws-2003.pdf

Page 20 clearly shows the map detailing the location in question

BELOW THIS I'VE ADDED THE Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 DOCUMENT WHICH IS 20 PAGES LONG.

pinheadplanet

3). 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.

Umkomaas

After the first paragraph (of appeal point #1) above add the following 'As ParkingEye have failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) by not giving the Notice within the relevant period, paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs (4) and (5), they are unable to hold me, the vehicle's registered keeper, liable for this charge.'

pinheadplanet

I could imagine they could get some leeway in terms of the recent covid situation, could reasonably be given more time to process? Could it be a bit of a grey area at the moment? I know 'the law is the law' though.

Redx

Nope , the law is the law , written before pandemics

It's anpr and servers with little human intervention , so a pandemic should have little or no effect and we don't see it in other parking eye cases , even the royal mail seems to be back to normal

As for anpr cameras permissions etc , judges think it's a matter for the council , trading standards and a different court

The regular contributors here have been doing this topic for 5 to 10 years and know all the speculations , including that parking prankster was bitten by radioactive spiders !!