Parking eye Southampton pier POPLA stage

Suffolkish

Needing a POPLA appeal assistance, here, if I may be so bold..?
First, reading NEWBIES thread, I rejected the NTK using the blue template; mainly as - it’s just rude to demand £100. Yes it was explained on the back about the identity of the keeper - is that to say it was POFA compliant - and then…. I didn’t see the subsequent email from parking eye asking me to offer the full name and address of the driver for more evidence, (as they hadn’t said they’d email me…rather than write on paper…) so I didn’t respond at all. 
So now an email with a POPLA code says:
‘Parkingeye have previously requested further evidence in response to the appeal that was submitted and provided 28 days for this to be sent to us. The 28-day period has now passed, and we are not in receipt of any further correspondence or evidence to confirm that the terms were not breached.

Parkingeye are a member of the British Parking Association and can confirm that there is adequate signage outlining the terms and conditions at this site.

We are writing to advise you that your appeal has been unsuccessful and that you have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.’
hmmmmmmm….. 
I understand that this land is not theirs….
that at night the signage is hard to read …. 

And that others have successfully appealed. So I’ll start with that. 

Suffolkish

And thank you so much if you read this and respond.

Umkomaas

Welcome to the forum. 

You could, if you're brave, do a single point appeal on the basis that this is not relevant land, PoFA keeper liability doesn't apply, PE haven't identified the driver, so the charge must be cancelled. 

Alternatively, use the example POPLA appeal points from the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, third post, making the 'not relevant land' point your opening one. 

Suffolkish

Thanks Umkomaas, I’ll research where you said.

Suffolkish

The driver found the information confusing. The driver had never been there before, and was visiting on holiday. The town pier is popular for sea fishing and specifically night time sea fishing. Which used to be promoted on Southampton council website. Is still on web fishing forums. (There are 25 or more species of fish to be found there apparently, attracted to the environs of the pier structure)  

Basically the end car park says it is permit holders Mon to Fri, 7am to 7pm. “Other than that it is public.” That really means “other than that you must PAY” 


The driver thought Monday to Friday 7pm to 7am at the far end was therefore ok. If it’s not Monday to Friday 7am - 7pm it must be ok to park. 

The driver did not see/read/undrstand other signs saying any differently, and the driver arrived in the dark. 

Friend - from France - confidently said “it’s ok all night” - friend can read, driver has dyslexia/slow processing of words. Local Hampshire friend going on outdated fishing forum information. 

If all of us find parking notices confusing, what is it like for people with English as a second language, or dyslexic people! 

Driver will be supplying photos. 

As for the rest - the ‘not relevant’ land, is most helpful. Does that in itself mean that POFA liability does not apply? Driver will not has not been identified by keeper. 

I must get on and write this! 

Thank you Umkomaas for your attention to this and  offering your clarification. I WILL be brave. Why not.

Suffolkish

Oh! How much time do I have to appeal to POPLA! I will look on newbies thread. 

Umkomaas

Suffolkish said:

Oh! How much time do I have to appeal to POPLA! I will look on newbies thread. 

Officially 28 days from the date of issue of the PPCs rejection letter, but there's a further 5 days (for service) to add to it. But don't leave it until the last minute, because once the deadline ends, that's it. It needs dealing with; there's no advantage in delaying. 

Suffolkish

Yes. Thank you very much. We need those nighttime photos urgently - but this is the week - it must be submitted by 28 days - the 6th. Thank you Umkomaas. I’ll submit a draft here, if I may, as I don’t feel confident that I understand many of the points.

Suffolkish

I hereby appeal the parking charge made by PE (Parking Eye) levied against me for the period of time spent on the Southampton Town Quay car park on the xxxxxx  2025. I do not believe the £100 penalty threat charge is fair for various reasons, which I will explain below.

1. Not Relevant Land
2. Keeper Liability in General
3. The disproportionate sum of £100 in relation to an accidentally missed payment of less than £10. 
4. The inadequately explained and positioned signage

Suffolkish

1. Not Relevant Land

Keeper liability with respect to byelaws. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however that car can also be driven by my mother, and my father, who were present on that day. Therefore it is not known who was driving the car either on entering or leaving the car park, either by ourselves or by PE. I am aware of keeper liability described by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) however I do not believe that applies to the land in question here, as this is not “relevant land” since it belongs to the port authority (ABP) which is subject to byelaws that are incompatible with PoFA. (See the ABP map here: (image of map plus byelaw 3  enclosed)  Therefore there is no legal basis for PE to pursue the registered keeper for any charges. I believe this was confirmed by POPLA assessor Steve Macallan’s position on ABP Byelaws and what they consider not to be “relevant land” in an appeal to a PCN POPLA assessment and decision: 29/09/2016 Verification Code: 6062356150. This makes it clear that the Town Quay area is not relevant land as defined in POFA. Parking Eye Ltd are well aware of this fact as they were party to that ruling. The ABP Byelaws can be found here: [photos of byelaws document (20 pages) with link]

2. Keeper liability in general

A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person. Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot –they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me. The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:- Understanding keeper liability “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time.’

Suffolkish

1. 3. A £100 fine is grossly disproportionate to the cost of parking, a cost which PE alleges to have been understood. 

   
   

   It is an Excessive charge in relation to supposed losses suffered by the landowner. 

   
   

   £100 -to evaluate if that is excessive or not is surely dependant on the time it takes to earn or receive £100 - for each person- which is extremely personal and should be decided on a case by case basis.
   

   
   

   Although I am aware of the Beavis vs PE ruling that has been used as a precedent in subsequent court cases concerning parking charges, I believe that case is not relevant to this case for the following reasons:

   a. The Beavis vs PE case was relevant to a different piece of land with a different commercial arrangement between the landowner and PE.

   b. In the Beavis vs PE case, the motorist parked exceeded a free parking period whereas PE allege that whoever was driving my car failed to pay for a ticket at the exact time of entry with no free period of parking. 

   
   

   PE charge explicit amounts for fixed periods of time in this car park and so should, depending on their commercial arrangement with ABP, not need to make up their income with penalty charges. This is different to the Beavis vs PE case because PE in that arrangement could only make money by levying charges for overstays.

   
   

   
   

   c. The fact that the car park was almost empty (it being a quiet weekday night) and almost all nearby commercial services had ceased trading for the day by that point, means that the landowner did not suffer any loss whatsoever (because nobody else was prevented from parking there) and that the alleged overstay, if it did even happen, is basically irrelevant. Therefore, in this case GPEOL should still apply and any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair.

   
   

   
   

   4. Procedural irregularities around information.

   4.1 Inadequate information: The PCN fails to include wording that identifies the facts that caused a charge to arise and fails to describe the unpaid parking charges that they allege were unpaid at the machine. 7(2) states:

   “The notice must - (b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose...and the other facts that made those charges payable...’’

   We still don’t know what the charges are which this fine is based on. Since they were quite accidentally unpaid, and less than £12, and the driver would have happily paid if that had been possible that night  - why not state what the actual parking fees not paid are, in this case, since this is the crucial amount owing, that has led to this punitive penalty charge of £100? 

   The driver would have cheerfully paid in full for the parking, no evidence can be supplied to support the contrary assumption.
   

   This NTK stated the supposed arrival and departure times (this is entirely based upon the reliability and security of their ANPR system) but did not state what the £100 charge was for with any detail. 
   

   
   

   4.2 Furthermore, in their letter of rejection to the appeal I lodged with them (which I think is clearly an automated system and is therefore not a valid procedure anyway) they did not make any response whatsoever to the appeal that I had made and did not include a photograph of the signage at that time of night, at that time, to evidence that it was clear enough to be impossible to miss - impossible to misunderstand. 
   

   The appeal rejection letter was simply a template with no extra wording relevant to this case at all. In fact there was no explanation for the appeal rejection whatsoever. I draw your attention to the BPA code of practice document [link] section 22.4 “If a driver or keeper appeals a parking charge you must review the case and decide whether to uphold the parking charge and explain why it was issued and should therefore be paid” but this was not done and in fact the rejection letter was simply an automated response with no wording relevant to this case. It can’t be acceptable for an appeal to be rejected out-of-hand by an automated system like this because it implies that the appeal was never read by PE. Therefore PE has clearly deviated from the BPA guidelines. 

   
   

   4.3 Furthermore, the NTK/PCN did not mention the existence of byelaws at all and also did not mention that as a result, any alleged vehicular-related infringements would have to be heard before a magistrates court as a trespass case, which seems to be essential and critical information that was not relayed to the vehicle’s keeper.
   

   
   

   
   

   4.4 ANPR reliability
   

   Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

   Parking Eye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained.