QDR parking fine.

KeithP

Your vehicle's registration mark is clearly visible in that image.

Coupon-mad

But it is a non-POFA notice as long as that's the back of the first PCN, not the 'Reminder' version.

Tsm96

Just checked the SAR. The one I posted is the parking charge notice, on the front at the top it says "Parking charge notice". 

They also sent another which is titled "Parking charge reminder". The reverse of that is different and says "We would like to remind you that if you were the driver at the time of the parking even you are required to pay or appeal". 

Coupon-mad

OK.  Like I said, non-POFA PCN. 

Only really helps if the Defendant wasn't driving or can't recall either way.

Tsm96

Defendant wasn't driving and parking eye don't know who was driving. I'll place that in my popla appeal 

Tsm96

Been putting together a POPLA appeal via this website. I'll put it here if anyone could help with it that'd be great as I'm not great with it.

POPLA reference:

Parking charge reference number:

Vehicle registration number: MA58WDP

 

I was issued a parking charge on 07/08/2020 by parking eye. I was not the driver at the time and I am not obliged by law to reveal the driver at the time. I am disputing this parking charge on several bases :-

 

Unclear, inadequate and non-compliant signage :-

Due to their high position, overall small size, being unlit and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs in the car park are difficult to read. The charging hours text is a different size across the sign, making some of it easy to miss. Some of these signs are also damaged, including the entrance sign which I have attached a photo of. There is also not enough time to read this due to its positioning on a main road. There is also spaces in this car park in which no signs are visible. This was compounded by the timing of the arrival at the car park. At this time of the evening, unlit signage is particularly difficult to read and prolonged the decision making process in this case.
Furthermore, the signage is ambiguous and unclear because the entire sign is about 'PARKING TARIFFS' (not 'total stay') and the sign creates no obligations except to:

- Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using payment machine.

The only place the word 'stay' is mentioned on the sign is where it talks about maximum stay of 14 hours, the rest is all about 'parking time'. So as the Pay & Display machine is the 'point of sale' and the P&D ticket is the receipt upon which an ordinary consumer would rely for the parking time, there was no contravention of the sign, as the option to park was not taken up.

POPLA is requested to check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. It is contended that the signs on this land, in terms of wording, position and clarity, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (which is denied here, due to the option of parking not being taken up).

 

The ANPR system is unreliable nor accurate :-

 

Although these systems have a reported high accuracy rate, there is well recorded evidence of them being prone to error and inaccuracy. Photographs produced as evidence by them, can be easily digitally altered. They do not prove identity of the driver and simply show an  photo of the front of the car and then a picture of the cars number plate in the dark. This is not an unquestionable entrance and exit photo.

 

Non POFA PCN :-

 

ParkingEye used a non-POFA PCN with nothing on the front or back, about the POFA or 'keeper liability after 29 days' that could meet the mandatory requirements of 9(2)b of Schedule 4. I have attached a photo of the received letter from a SAR from parking eye. This letter clearly states it needs the driver and has no mention of the registered keeper. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
At no point have ParkingEye provided any proof as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle; nor have I provided them with the identity of the driver (nor do I intend to).

 

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 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.

 

 

 

1505grandad

"I was issued a parking charge on 07/08/2020 by parking eye. "

Seems strange to be a POPLA event for pcn issued over 2 years ago.

Coupon-mad

It is true, though.  It was 2020.  PEye issued the POPLA code now and I praised them for that move earlier in the thread.

The first point in the POPLA appeal needs to be the nonPOFA PCN.  Which there is a template for in the NEWBIES thread.

Tsm96

Coupon-mad said:

It is true, though.  It was 2020.  PEye issued the POPLA code now and I praised them for that move earlier in the thread.

The first point in the POPLA appeal needs to be the nonPOFA PCN.  Which there is a template for in the NEWBIES thread.

Thank you. Will sort that out. 

Tsm96

Submitted my best go at a popla appeal. The main and first point was about the letters just needing the driver. Then signage. Then land owner authority. They replied with their evidence. They basically just sent some pictures of  current signs, sent a sign plan too of where the signs are. Talked about having the land owners authority and didn't say too much about the fact the letters only ask for the driver. The only thing they kinda said about it was this : 


"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 ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract"

Regarding land owner authority, they sent a contract they've got with Elite parking LTD. 

Their photos of the signs also don't show how hard they are to see when cars are parked in front of them and how high they are etc.