Yet another scumbag parking eye letter - Fox House, Derby - POPLA Stage

1505grandad

"I will be taking this to............."

Most definitely your MP as well.

usernamenotfound

Thanks for the suggestion 1505grandad 
However, I have already sent the email on Friday I'm afraid.
I've given them the weekend and this week, so if I get no response by Wednesday, I will revert back to the POPLA appeal. 
This will give me the time to sort out the metadata screenshots I need to prepare for each photo.

usernamenotfound

Still no response from Carters Surveyors.
I will go ahead and send the POPLA appeal, please let me know what you think to my redrafted appeal:

Dear POPLA,
Regarding POPLA CODE: 6063635447
On 3 November 2025, Parkingeye issued a parking charge notice to the driver of vehicle ---- --- with the following reason: "By not gaining the appropriate permit/authorisation, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking charge is now payable to Parkingeye Ltd (as the creditor)"

As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

1) The “signs” in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
2) Parkingeye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.

1) The “signs” in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having returned to review the site, I am of the view that there is no evident signage on the site. I have included the embedded metadata for each photo as proof of times and dates they were taken, the vehicle was parked on parking space 8 at the time:

(ALL MY PHOTOS THAT DO NO SHOW THE SIGNAGE (+embedded details of date & time))

Therefore there was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion.

It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, the site is unsigned and therefore no full terms are displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering – nor is it visible at the entrance, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

I submit the following judgment which is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver’s perspective, and from where the car was parked. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

2) Parkingeye Ltd lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing

It is suggested that Parkingeye Ltd does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Parkingeye Ltd be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts.

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).

Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists. 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 14 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

14.1. Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering: 

a) the identity of the landowner(s) 

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed; 

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking; 

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission 

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers; 

f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs 

h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA; 

i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and 

j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking charges. 

In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by Parkingeye Ltd is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from Parkingeye Ltd.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards.

usernamenotfound

Here are all the photos I will include in the appeal (including the metadata)

Coupon-mad

Yes give it a go.

I would remove all this wordy blurb though as it adds nothing to the appeal:

"Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists. 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."

MothballsWallet

@Coupon-mad Is this a case where if the OP has to chase up Carters Surveyors for a reply again, they might want to make a polite reference that should this PCN go to court, they will be listed as a witness? It may focus their attention.

@usernamenotfound - is this the Carters Surveyors in question? 

usernamenotfound

Hi MothballsWallet
I believe it is.
I can definitely give it a try if Coupon-mad agrees with it.

Coupon-mad

MothballsWallet said:

@Coupon-mad Is this a case where if the OP has to chase up Carters Surveyors for a reply again, they might want to make a polite reference that should this PCN go to court, they will be listed as a witness? It may focus their attention.

Good idea. No reason why not.

ChirpyChicken

MothballsWallet said:

@Coupon-mad Is this a case where if the OP has to chase up Carters Surveyors for a reply again, they might want to make a polite reference that should this PCN go to court, they will be listed as a witness? It may focus their attention.

@usernamenotfound - is this the Carters Surveyors in question? 

Tell them they will issue a witness summons as per the relevant Civil Procedure Rules and send them the link

usernamenotfound

Is this 

PRACTICE DIRECTION 34A?

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part34/pd_part34a