ParkingEye LBCC and defence of 'landowner authority'

Coupon-mad

Starbucks normally cancel; we've seen them do that more than once.  Did you email the CEO in the friend's name and spell out the sad circumstances that caused him to take longer in Starbucks?  Try that again because we KNOW Starbucks cancel.

You will not win on no landowner authority.  P/Eye will have a contract.

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

OK will try Starbucks again. When I wrote to them it was on the automated/online 'customer complaints' feature on their website. I will try to cc their CEO. It was right at the start of the lockdown so they probably had other things to occupy them.
It's disappointing re landowner authority, though I will take your advice. I did pull Land Registry records and it does mention restricted covenants on the land when it was previously sold.
If I could ask one further question on how to proceed. The 30-day expiry on the LBCC from PE is this week. Am I now better advising we will pay and offering a payment plan based on his means while the letter to Starbucks is sent?

Redx

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third said:

The circs were, he had been to visit the grave of his recently deceased mother, the Starbucks is next door to St Helen's Crematorium. He was a bit upset and went into Starbucks for a drink. I think it is something like a one hour max stay and he stayed 40/45 mins over. He then got an ANPR ticket in the post. There's no argument about length of stay, or the signage etc.
I've written to Starbucks for him and got no reply. I only went down the 'no landowner authority' as it was the only possible defence he had. 
Also I had a PCN from PE after parking at a car park in Leeds city centre some months previously. I used that defence with Popla and they upheld the appeal on the grounds PE did not cough-up proof of the contract. In this case is used the same defence and Popla refused it. 
With regards Redx response, can I clarify, PE not supplying the contract to show authority is not a defence as such? They could just turn up with it at court and then he will lose and be lumbered with a bigger bill and a CCJ if he can't pay up straight away (which he can't).
It's quite a simple point really, if they have authority then show us the contract and we will pay. Though as someone recently linked on here to a news report of PE issuing tickets to motorists captured by their cameras but not actually parked on land they had authority for.
So either, a) they don't have such authority, b) they do but can't be bothered producing or c) they do but will not produce until we get to court.
Regards c) surely this is against the spirit of the protocol and an abuse of process? If I write on his behalf saying, 'show us the contract and we will pay' and they do not produce and/or ignore, then what is the point of the pre-court protocol and trying to remedy such matters without recourse to bothering the small claims court and incurring further costs?

No they cannot just turn up with it in Court , that is am ambush and not allowed , they should reveal it in the exhibits stage a few weeks before , standard practice , it should be unredacted too , but sometimes a contract is redacted and that is a good legal point for the defence

As coupon says , they will have a contract !!

If this went to Popla , their evidence pack will contain a copy it was included when my son had an Excel one , but was redacted , so parking prankster had it unredacted for me 😜

If popla was not tried , then that was foolish

I haven't read back , never do on a tablet !! But if popla was used , check the evidence pack

Plan A is the best option here , it always is !!

Coupon-mad

The 30-day expiry on the LBCC from PE is this week. Am I now better advising we will pay and offering a payment plan based on his means while the letter to Starbucks is sent?

Absolutely NO.  And more NO.

Send an email to enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk in the name of the victim, and tell them the sad circumstances and that the driver has now contacted Starbucks and believes they will be contacting P/Eye to cancel it.  If not, can he have a POPLA code please?

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

Redx said:

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third said:

The circs were, he had been to visit the grave of his recently deceased mother, the Starbucks is next door to St Helen's Crematorium. He was a bit upset and went into Starbucks for a drink. I think it is something like a one hour max stay and he stayed 40/45 mins over. He then got an ANPR ticket in the post. There's no argument about length of stay, or the signage etc.
I've written to Starbucks for him and got no reply. I only went down the 'no landowner authority' as it was the only possible defence he had. 
Also I had a PCN from PE after parking at a car park in Leeds city centre some months previously. I used that defence with Popla and they upheld the appeal on the grounds PE did not cough-up proof of the contract. In this case is used the same defence and Popla refused it. 
With regards Redx response, can I clarify, PE not supplying the contract to show authority is not a defence as such? They could just turn up with it at court and then he will lose and be lumbered with a bigger bill and a CCJ if he can't pay up straight away (which he can't).
It's quite a simple point really, if they have authority then show us the contract and we will pay. Though as someone recently linked on here to a news report of PE issuing tickets to motorists captured by their cameras but not actually parked on land they had authority for.
So either, a) they don't have such authority, b) they do but can't be bothered producing or c) they do but will not produce until we get to court.
Regards c) surely this is against the spirit of the protocol and an abuse of process? If I write on his behalf saying, 'show us the contract and we will pay' and they do not produce and/or ignore, then what is the point of the pre-court protocol and trying to remedy such matters without recourse to bothering the small claims court and incurring further costs?

No they cannot just turn up with it in Court , that is am ambush and not allowed , they should reveal it in the exhibits stage a few weeks before , standard practice , it should be unredacted too , but sometimes a contract is redacted and that is a good legal point for the defence

As coupon says , they will have a contract !!

If this went to Popla , their evidence pack will contain a copy it was included when my son had an Excel one , but was redacted , so parking prankster had it unredacted for me 😜

Hello, with regards this, I did go to Popla and they did not furnish a contract but a one page form, partly redacted, headed 'Contract Amendment form'. I took issue with this (at length below) but the appeal was still disallowed.

"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. 

 

Notwithstanding the signage on site, this does not I submit give ParkingEye authority to issue parking charge notices and I respectfully submit neither does it provide Popla with grounds to allow this charge. 

 

I put the operator to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. 

 

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). 

 

ParkingEye, and therefore Popla, must be alive to this issue, as the operator has included a single page headed, ‘Contract Amendment Form’. 

 

However an amendment form is not the contract. It is a form. 

 

This is not evidence of a contract and carries none of the requirements of the BPA code. 

 

It does not sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. 

 

This form provided by ParkingEye also has information redacted in the category, ‘Time Limit (plus grace period)’. It states 1 hour free stay. It may add ‘Genuine customer exempt’ – but we have no way of knowing as the operator has chosen to hide that information and provided no explanation why. 

 

The form gives no information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.  

 

It also provides no information on 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 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 

 

ParkingEye has failed each and every category of the BPA Code in the above regards. 

 

The ‘Contract Amendment Form’ also fails to meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006, please see 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44 

 

44 Execution of documents 

 

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company— 

 

(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or 

(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions. 

 

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company 

 

(a) by two authorised signatories, or 

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature. 

 

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2) 

 

(a) every director of the company, and 

(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company. 

 

In order to comply with the requirements of the above Act, two signatories from each company must sign the contract. 

 

On this form, there is only one signature, thus the requirements of paragraph 2 have not been met.  

 

In addition, the signatories must be authorised as defined by paragraph 3 of the above Act. The position within the landowner of the only single signatory on the purported contract has not been stated thus failing the requirements of the Act. 

 

If ParkingEye purport this is a contract, it is an invalid one under English law. 

 

Therefore there is no proof that a valid contract actually exists between the two parties. 

If popla was not tried , then that was foolish

I haven't read back , never do on a tablet !! But if popla was used , check the evidence pack

Plan A is the best option here , it always is !!

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

Coupon-mad said:

Starbucks normally cancel; we've seen them do that more than once.  Did you email the CEO in the friend's name and spell out the sad circumstances that caused him to take longer in Starbucks?  Try that again because we KNOW Starbucks cancel.

You will not win on no landowner authority.  P/Eye will have a contract.

Thanks again. I think we are at cross-purposes. I have already tried and failed at Popla. I'm stuck because if there is a contract between PE and Eurogarages, which there probably will be of course and they just will not show it then they can take him/us to court, incur further fees/fines and we will have to pay up, which seems an abuse of process when at this pre-court stage all I ask for is proof of the contract, which they will not give. Rock and a hard place springs to mind.
I will do as you advise and email them anyway asking for more time and that the person ticketed needs to get debt advice and inform they we are also contacting Starbucks to attempt to get the damned thing cancelled. Thanks again for your advice and patience.

Redx

nobody said any of the processes was fair , but the same arguments can be put to the claimant and to a judge , in court , based on the contract that will be put before the defendant and court at the exhibits stage, before the hearing

all this preamble doesnt change the fact that court is where the actual decision will be made in a dispute , about any contract

we dont make the laws and procedures, which is why we always insist that PLAN A is best, it always is

contract law can be difficult and protracted, it keeps many lawyers in work including 2 of my family members , be it probate law, conveyancing , criminal defence solicitors on call or whatever the topic and specialty

Parking Eye are relying on contract law and signage, the test is a hearing in court, but they cannot ambush the defendant in court

only the government can change this topic, be it court or parking practices or whatever , hence the current MHCLG changes after Sir Greg Knights Parking Bill of 2019

a game of poker wouldnt be the same if everyone had to show their hands before anyone decided to fold or bid

Le_Kirk

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third said:

Coupon-mad said:

Starbucks normally cancel; we've seen them do that more than once.  Did you email the CEO in the friend's name and spell out the sad circumstances that caused him to take longer in Starbucks?  Try that again because we KNOW Starbucks cancel.

You will not win on no landowner authority.  P/Eye will have a contract.

Thanks again. I think we are at cross-purposes. I have already tried and failed at Popla. I'm stuck because if there is a contract between PE and Eurogarages, which there probably will be of course and they just will not show it then they can take him/us to court, incur further fees/fines and we will have to pay up, which seems an abuse of process when at this pre-court stage all I ask for is proof of the contract, which they will not give. Rock and a hard place springs to mind.
I will do as you advise and email them anyway asking for more time and that the person ticketed needs to get debt advice and inform they we are also contacting Starbucks to attempt to get the damned thing cancelled. Thanks again for your advice and patience.

There will be no further fees and "fines" (there never were any fines, just speculative invoice(s)).  What you see on the Particulars of claim as fees should be the original PCN £100 plus filing fee £25, hearing fee £25 and (sometimes) legal costs £50.

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third

Le_Kirk said:

Todd_J_Bonzalez_the_Third said:

Coupon-mad said:

Starbucks normally cancel; we've seen them do that more than once.  Did you email the CEO in the friend's name and spell out the sad circumstances that caused him to take longer in Starbucks?  Try that again because we KNOW Starbucks cancel.

You will not win on no landowner authority.  P/Eye will have a contract.

Thanks again. I think we are at cross-purposes. I have already tried and failed at Popla. I'm stuck because if there is a contract between PE and Eurogarages, which there probably will be of course and they just will not show it then they can take him/us to court, incur further fees/fines and we will have to pay up, which seems an abuse of process when at this pre-court stage all I ask for is proof of the contract, which they will not give. Rock and a hard place springs to mind.
I will do as you advise and email them anyway asking for more time and that the person ticketed needs to get debt advice and inform they we are also contacting Starbucks to attempt to get the damned thing cancelled. Thanks again for your advice and patience.

There will be no further fees and "fines" (there never were any fines, just speculative invoice(s)).  What you see on the Particulars of claim as fees should be the original PCN £100 plus filing fee £25, hearing fee £25 and (sometimes) legal costs £50.

So £200 is the tops amount we are looking at? Are you sure about that?

Redx

Might be slightly higher with added interest , but the figures quoted are the correct figures

Look them up if you don't believe us , they are in the public domain