PCN - Parking Eye

Couldey

Coupon-mad said:

Could the car have driven past the ANPR cameras and into the Council area to park?  If yes, put in the appeal that is what the keeper believes happened. That the car wasn't parked in the confines of the PEye boundary and just drove through.

Sounds like they won't be able to prove to the contrary?  If PEye can't prove that, then your Mum (the keeper) wins at POPLA.

Driver never appeals.  Keeper does.  She could always transfer liability later if POPLA fails.  They won't be paying even if it does.

Is this what your referring to in the bold text? If so, I'll put that into the draft.

They parked in the bay. From what I understand your saying, PE won't be able to prove they parked due to the type of ANPR camera they have? 

Also, I appeal on day 25? - "In the case of CURRENT (NON-DVLA-BANNED) BRITISH PARKING ASSOCIATION (BPA) AOS MEMBERS ONLY, appeal online or by email at day 25 or 26 after a windscreen PCN"

Couldey

Is the below ok to send? I've highlighted the bits I've added in bold to the template:

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. The car was not parked in the confines of the Parking Eye boundary and just drove through. The occupants of the vehicle were elderly, with the keeper being a blue badge holder.  

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner."

Coupon-mad

Couldey said:

Coupon-mad said:

Could the car have driven past the ANPR cameras and into the Council area to park?  If yes, put in the appeal that is what the keeper believes happened. That the car wasn't parked in the confines of the PEye boundary and just drove through.

Sounds like they won't be able to prove to the contrary?  If PEye can't prove that, then your Mum (the keeper) wins at POPLA.

Driver never appeals.  Keeper does.  She could always transfer liability later if POPLA fails.  They won't be paying even if it does.

Is this what your referring to in the bold text? If so, I'll put that into the draft.

They parked in the bay. From what I understand your saying, PE won't be able to prove they parked due to the type of ANPR camera they have? 

Also, I appeal on day 25? - "In the case of CURRENT (NON-DVLA-BANNED) BRITISH PARKING ASSOCIATION (BPA) AOS MEMBERS ONLY, appeal online or by email at day 25 or 26 after a windscreen PCN"

You didn't get a windscreen PCN.

Couldey

Thank you for your replies CM. So the above draft is good to be submitted to Parking Eye Appeals?

Coupon-mad

I think I'd add:

Whatever the allegation, you are required to show exactly where the car parked (if it did) because there are two car parks adjacent to each other and it is my contention that the car was merely driven through to the council side. Prove me wrong or prove it to POPLA.

Couldey

Ok so final draft to Parking Eye appeals as the Keeper (Stage 1) and the bold text is what I have added as per the advice on here:

"I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. The car was not parked in the confines of the Parking Eye boundary and just drove through. The occupants of the vehicle were elderly, with the keeper being a blue badge holder.  

Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

Whatever the allegation, you are required to show exactly where the car parked (if it did) because there are two car parks adjacent to each other and it is my contention that the car was merely driven through to the council side. Prove me wrong or prove it to POPLA."

Is the above ok to send as an appeal? Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

The 'whatever' paragraph should be the final paragraph.

Couldey

Thank you CM, edited the above and will submit that to PE appeals.

Oddly I had a call from the food shop manager today, who gave me the number for the school again but said to ask for the facilities manager. He said he spoke to one of the teachers and the teacher suggested to call the manager to get the pcn cancelled. Called the number and left a voicemail for someone to call back. Let’s see if they call back tomorrow.

Thanks 😊

Couldey

Hello, so I received the below in a PDF attachment via email from no-reply@parkingeye.net:

Reference: Parking Charge Notice - xxxxxx/xxxxxx

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 18 August 2024 at 15:xx, at Harrow Hall, Langley car park.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been referred for further information.

You have stated that you were not the driver of the vehicle at the date and time of the breach of the terms and conditions of the car park, but you have not indicated who was.

You have already been notified that under section 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the full name and the current postal address of the driver.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the Date of Issue, the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you, the registered keeper. This warning is given to you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under schedule 4 of that Act.

Please note, if you have made or wish to make an appeal on behalf of the driver, and you do not provide the full name and current postal address of the driver, Parkingeye will be obliged to deal with the representations made in your name.

Parkingeye have placed this charge on hold for 28 days to enable you to provide the evidence requested. If this information is not provided within 28 days, the appeal may well be rejected and a POPLA code provided.

Parkingeye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ

16 September 2024

Alternatively, payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye Ltd, PO Box 117, Blyth, NE24 9EJ.

Yours faithfully,

Parkingeye Team

Parkingeye Limited, 40 Eaton Avenue Buckshaw Village, Chorley, PR7 7NA, Registered in England, Registration No. 5134454

Further Information relating to your enquiry

How was a contract formed with the driver?

The Parking Charges issued for, and on behalf of, the landowner are levied on the basis of a contract with the motorist, set out via signage at the site. The signage details the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge will be payable, if the terms and conditions are breached.

The DVLA release the name and address details of a vehicle keeper to registered companies like ourselves if ‘reasonable cause (i.e. breach of parking regulations) can be shown. We ensure signage is ample, clear, and visible and in line with the BPA Code of Practice to ensure the motorist is bound when they enter and remain at a client site. Parkingeye considers that it is trite law that a contract can be formed in this way.

The case of Parkingeye v Beavis and Wardley [2014], proves particularly beneficial when considering the creation of a contract with the driver. Here it was stated that, “it is well established that a valid contract can be made by offer, in the form of terms and conditions set out on the notice, and acceptance, in the form of one’s car in the space provided [...] any unequivocal act of acceptance will suffice, and the signs clearly state (as anyone would expect nowadays) that parking constitutes acceptance.”

The Supreme Court has now subsequently supported this position and Lord Mance states within the Judgment that, “There is common ground between all before the court that the relationship between Parkingeye and Mr Beavis was a contractual relationship [...] Mr Beavis undertook not to park for more [than] two hours and, upon any breach of that obligation, incurred a liability of £85.”

He then goes on to state that, “[...] I am satisfied that it is correct in law. The terms of the signs which Mr Beavis must be taken to have accepted by conduct in entering and parking in the car park are to that effect. Mr Beavis thereby expressly agreed to stay for two hours maximum [...] and to pay the stipulated sum if he failed so to comply.”

Is the Charge enforceable? 

Is the Charge a penalty?

In relation to the value and enforceability of the Parking Charge, Parkingeye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour. The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.

In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by Parkingeye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.

Lord Hodge states that, “...local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive [...] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”

Parkingeye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.

  

How can the Charge be enforceable if there is a reduction for early payment?

The offer of a reduction is not indicative that the Charge should be considered a penalty. Parkingeye is required to offer a reduction for prompt payment pursuant to clause 19.7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

I wasn’t the driver, therefore I will not be paying the Parking Charge?

Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that the operator must inform the registered keeper that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that, as the operator does not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass the notice to them.

The Act also warns that if, after 29 days, the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to the operator complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act (which Parkingeye firmly believe it has).

What is the difference between a Consideration Period and Grace Period?

Clause 13.1 of the current BPA Code of Practice, released on 6th January 2020, explains that a driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions of the car park before entering into a parking contract. If a driver decides not to stay and leaves the car park, a reasonable consideration period must be given before the driver can be bound by a parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type of car park, but the code states that it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.

Please note, a consideration period does not apply when a parking event has taken place. The BPA Code of Practice defines a parking event as a limited free stay period or when a driver pays for parking. In these instances, a motorist is given a reasonable grace period at the end of their parking event before a Parking Charge Notice is issued. The code states that this period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

Does Parkingeye have the authority to issue Parking Charges?

Parkingeye can confirm that it only operates on sites that are situated on private land, are not council owned and that Parkingeye has written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices on all of its sites from the landowner.

Parkingeye must accept or reject my appeal within 35 days?

The clause (22.8) to which this argument refers to has been amended and is accessible to the general public in the latest British Parking Association Code of Practice. Parkingeye remain fully compliant with the Code of Practice and all relevant transitional arrangements.

Do Parkingeye use CCTV to monitor car parks?

Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured.

Can I claim back VAT on a Parking Charge Notice?

Parking Charge Notices are outside the scope for VAT. Therefore, in accordance with HM Customs, you cannot claim back VAT on this Charge.

Where can I view evidence relating to my Parking Charge, including images of my vehicle?

You can access the Driver Portal on the Parkingeye website to view evidence relating to your Parking Charge. You will need to enter your Parking Charge Reference and vehicle registration number as found on the correspondence issued by us. Please visit: https://portal.parkingeye.co.uk/

        

KeithP

Ignore that and wait patiently for your PoPLA code.