IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Parkingeye and Britannia parking

Mistysocks
Mistysocks Posts: 14 Forumite
Hi. Firstly sorry I have read and re read the newbies post and other sites on charges over a few weeks and I just can't get to grips with all the legal stuff and what to write. I need someone to tell me what to do and write as I just can't get my head around it, so sorry in advance.... I am rather stressed....
There are two parking charge notices...... fab ��
First is Britannia. The driver parked and paid for 4hrs however, the machine was so confusing and not very clear on how to use it (input reg plate) and another lady was having a meltdown as she couldn't work it out. The driver put their credit card in to pay, pin no entered, payment with. They hit the button under receipt as They had soooo much hassle, over 5mins, they'd get it as proof. The keeper then received a notice a few days after the event saying they hadn't paid and showing my car going in and out. They had the receipt so appealed with them, they rejected saying the proof of payment is actually a void card receipt! Which on looking it does say that but They pressed the receipt button, there wasn't one for void transaction. How do I appeal this? The driver thought they had paid and was back within the 4hours paid for. The receipt shows the amount and reg plate and time.
Second one is parking Eye,
They sent me a parking charge notice for 10 mins showing my car go in and out . They state it is permit/authorised only. They do not have a picture of the car parked and the keeper appealed this asking for further pictures which they have not supplied. I didn't state who the driver was.
I know with this one I can appeal to popla as they have sent me a parking charge where there is in fact no parking and they have no proof the car was parked. I need a template of what to write to popla, the jargon part I don't get.
The Britannia one I don't even know where to start to appeal. I have photos of the machine and notices, the thing is the driver thought They had paid, and prepared to pay the £4.10 but not £100!
Please help and please word it in a "child friendly" way. I'm not stupid but feel very stupid not understanding what to do/write with regards to these charges.
Thank you in advance.
«13

Comments

  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 6 July 2017 at 8:28PM
    ok , simple terms , from start to finish

    job 1) , check the BPA WEBSITE http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators AOS members and see if either or both are BPA AOS members

    yes they both are

    job 2) now go to the NEWBIES sticky thread , read post #1

    job 3) see the blue text template ? , appeal each one using it "as is" , no changes , as keeper (not as driver)

    nb:- both companies are using ANPR cameras at the entrance/exit , so parking is not monitored at all, just TIME ON SITE

    assume they reject the appeals (most of the time initial appeals are rejected - no matter what , even if you were run over and taken to hospital and was on life support , they wont cancel as there is no profit in it, which is why we dont care about what happened on the day , personally I have no interest in "your story" , it doesnt really matter what that "story is" , not to me , definitely not to the parking company , and definitely not to popla either)

    job 4) , go back to the NEWBIES sticky thread , post #3 and check other appeals made by other members (no templates at all here, but various examples of what others have used before you came along)

    job 5) open a word doc, find a recent popla appeal and copy and paste it to word , now adapt it and adjust it to suit

    bear in mind you are not "telling a story" , few if any care about "what happened" , the only thing that matters is putting up a legal defence to counter their legal arguments that a contract exists and a debt is owed

    so basically you are not saying "sorry, I didnt mean to do it but........."

    you are actually saying (this is where you puff your chest out and take umbrage)

    HOW DARE YOU SEND ME THIS INVOICE AND IN MY APPEAL/DEFENCE I STATE THE FOLLOWING

    YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE

    1) NO LANDOWNER CONTRACT
    2) POOR AND INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
    3) YOU FAILED TO FOLLOW THE BPA CoP clause blah blah and clause blah blah and no valid contract and poor signage and no grace periods etc
    4) this event is not like BEAVIS because.................

    5) blah
    6) blah blah

    I PUT YOU TO STRICT PROOF OF WHAT YOU ALLEGE AND ASK POPLA/THE COURT TO STRIKE OUT THIS SPURIOUS UNWARRANTED CHARGE

    but you need to do the work because nobody here will do it for you

    but if you post you draft appeal/defence on here (minus any personal details/references etc , someone should check it over for you and point out anything that needs omitting/editing/adding

    hope that helps ?

    now edit your last post because due to parking companies reading this forum , the following words are banned

    "ME , MYSELF , I"

    the correct terms are THE KEEPER and THE DRIVER , nothing else

    ps:- this person was making all the same rookie mistakes as you are (and as I was many years ago before coming here)

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5636428
  • Quentin
    Quentin Posts: 40,405 Forumite
    If you've done all the reading you say you have you should know this:


    Throughout you are advised to never reveal who the driver was.


    You need to edit your post to remove the details of who was driving


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts here against you
  • Mistysocks
    Mistysocks Posts: 14 Forumite
    Thank you so much. The appeals have already been rejected by both companies so I will try to locate situations close to my own to appeal to popla.
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    edited 6 July 2017 at 11:50PM
    ok , please do so, find similar threads from this year (2017) so that their popla appeals can be adapted

    but do not get "hung up" or "sidetracked" on what happened on the days the charges were brought about , any info about that day may not be relevant , or not worth considering , or not worth bringing up

    this is what the POPLA website says about appeals
    Collect your evidence

    Prepare any evidence which may support your case
    You should be prepared to attach any evidence that you believe supports your case. This might include a crime reference number (if the vehicle was stolen), photographs (if you think the signage was inadequate), your pay and display voucher (if you say it was displayed and had not expired) or any witness statements if applicable. It will be useful to have electronic copies of these to hand so that you can upload these during the online process.
    notice in previous POPLA appeals, plus in todays post by umkomaas in the thread I linked , that the liast of appeal points may have nothing at all to do with your "story" or "who did what"


    popla appeals are "put up or shut up" defences, where you try to get them to fail on a single point , of many points


    win on one point alone , and you win outright , REGARDLESS of what happened on the day


    or the PPC may "fold" when seeing a well constructed popla appeal that they will struggle to beat on each and every count


    good luck


    and post the draft on here for critique when finalised , minus reference , no pcn numbers , no VRM numbers , no names or addresses or emails etc


    ad them just before you convert the final appeal to a pdf from a word doc


    then UPLOAD the appeal to POPLA, after choosing "OTHER" in their tick boxes (ignore all the other loaded questions)


    in their comments box , put "SEE ATTACHED APPEAL" , then submit it


    so no , do not copy and paste your appeal into their comments box , it may not fit anyway , so dont try it , ie:- UPLOAD IT AS A PDF
  • Mistysocks
    Mistysocks Posts: 14 Forumite
    Thank you so much. Your help is really appreciated.
  • Mistysocks
    Mistysocks Posts: 14 Forumite
    Please can you take a look at this draft.

    Ref no xxxxxxxxxxxx
    POPLA reference Code: XXXXXX
    Dear POPLA,

    I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX. I wish to appeal the £100 issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) by Parking Eye car park management for ‘Parking In No Parking Area' at xxxxxxxxxx

    I submit the reasons below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge and would be grateful if you would respectfully consider my appeal:-

    1. ANPR Evidence.
    2. Parking Eye car park management has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    3. No contract was entered into between Parking Eye car park management and the Driver or Registered Keeper
    4. The car park had unclear, non-obvious, non-BPA-compliant signage.


    1. I would question the authenticity of the ANPR photographs taken of the vehicle – most notably the time stamps and location coordinates. On close examination of the photographs, the details (time, location, direction) are added as a black overlay box on-top of the photos in the upper right hand corner. It is well within the realms of possibility for even an amateur to use free photo-editing software to add these black boxes and text with authentic looking Meta data. Not only is this possible, but this practice has even been in use by UKPC, who were banned by the DVLA after it emerged.

    I would challenge Parking Eye to prove that a stationary, highly advanced camera was used to generate these photos (including viewing direction, camera location etc.). I would also challenge Parking Eye that they possess the technology to generate these precise types of photographs, as the date stamps have been applied to the photo in such an amateurish way (there are much more sophisticated ways of hardcoding photo data).

    As there is no marking on the photographs to indicate which specific camera took the photograph, and no other distinguishing features in the feature other than XXXXXXXX, the distinct possibility that the photographs were taken of the vehicle when it was elsewhere and used in this instance cannot be dismissed. I again would challenge Parking Eye car park management to prove the photographs which have been provided to me are indeed genuine.


    2. Parking Eye car park management has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. 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, not 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. Only full compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence that a keeper was the driver) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed by POPLA to be the liable party.

    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 cannot show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. Parking Eye car park management has failed to do this.

    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. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. If POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.
    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

    So, this is a charge that could only be potentially enforced against a known driver. Whilst I am the registered keeper of the car, the driver has never been identified or proven and there is no evidence as to the identity of that individual.


    3. As Parking Eye car park management does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require them to produce an un redacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what Parking Eye car park management is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely erect some signs 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).

    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 any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge(which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Parking Eye car park management has failed to produce evidence that it has the authority to form contracts with drivers on this land or to pursue charges. The signs at the car service area in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Parking Eye car park management clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract.

    I contend that Parking Eye car park management merely holds a basic commercial licence to supply and maintain confusing signage and to issue parking charge notices as a deterrent.

    In my email appeal to Parking Eye car park management on 2nd July 2017 I asked them to provide me with copies of all photos relating to my car as the registered keeper, of which they did not supply any on replying. So the only photos they have are very dubious ones showing the front of a car and the rear which could have been taken anywhere as there are no clear entry or exit barriers near a bollard with dubious dates as times on it.
    None of the requested information was supplied as part of the appeal response, and the appeal response itself appears to be a pro-forma refusal. Were the Parking Eye car park management appeal process anything other than a process by which to appear compliant with BPA guidelines then that information would have been provided in good faith as a matter of course. The fact that it has not been provided indicates that the Parking Eye car park management appeal process is perfunctory and essentially useless.


    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

    Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt, a witness statement to the effect that a contract is or was in place will not be sufficient to provide the necessary detail of the contract terms. Such a witness statement would not comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice as the definition of the exact services provided by Parking Eye car park management would not be fully stated.

    4. I stated in my appeal email that signage is not clearly displayed, nor can you read the terms and conditions as the writing is so small and the signs are roughly 8-9 foot high on a wall. I walked to the service area after I received the notice to take photos. I could not read it standing on the ground so I have no doubt that a person driving entering the area would not see it.

    It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs with such poorly displayed terms, putting the onus clearly on drivers to search carefully for where and how the terms are displayed. It is surely the responsibility of Parking Eye car park management to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Parking Eye car park management to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park

    I request that Parking Eye car park management provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific detail including an agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

    This lack of signage runs counter to section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice which states:

    18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

    As Registered Keeper of the vehicle, I contend that:

    The signage states in very small black lettering against a white background (see photo A) I respectfully suggest the POPLA adjudicator will agree that the words are exceptionally difficult to read and understand, on the photograph I have provided and therefore breach Section 18.3 of the BPA CoP as listed previously.


    The signage information provided by Parking Eye car park management fails the test of being “plain and intelligible.” The question one should be asking is, why warn motorists using tiny black writing against a white background? Parking Eye also state in their notice charge that the signage states that this is private land, as you can see in photo A, it does not state this at all. The notice also states "The signage also contains further terms and conditions associated with this car park by which those who park in the car park agree to be bound" However, parkingeye have fail to supply photographic proof that this vehicle was parked and therefore the terms and conditions, if they could even be read by a driver in a car, is invalid as the car is not parked.


    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in adjudication:

    ‘Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.’ Parking Eye car park management have failed to do this.

    The signs are positioned high up in the service area (as shown in photo B) and the small lettering was not visible (readable) to be seen by any driver entering the service area at that any time of the day in a normal sized car. This is not mitigating circumstances but failure by Parking Eye car park management to ensure that their signs were to be seen accordingly. The BPA Code of Practice section 18, state that clear signage must be erected at each entrance and additional signage installed throughout the area. The signs must be visible at all times of the day; these requirements were not met. I ask this operator to show how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective when entering the site. 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 demand strict proof that those signs are visible at that exact time on that day.

    The BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B, under Contrast and illumination:

    Signs should be readable and understandable at all times.

    Furthermore, the landmark case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 establishes that a parking charge will only be valid where signage is clear and the driver therefore able to be fully aware of any charges. Parking Eye car park management has not provided evidence that such signs, if present, were available throughout the car park and visible, from the area where the car was parked at the time of the event.

    I therefore respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.

    Yours Sincerely,

    XXXXXX XXXX.
  • Mistysocks
    Mistysocks Posts: 14 Forumite
    Hi, can anyone confirm that this is ok to send please? Many thanks in advance
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,639
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    I would not have this, as it never works at POPLA to cast aspersions on ANPR systems:
    1. ANPR Evidence.

    ...and if it really was only ten minutes I would replace it with a decent argument quoting the BPA Code of Practice on 'grace periods'. Search this board for:

    'POPLA grace period Kelvin eleven minutes'
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • Mistysocks
    Mistysocks Posts: 14 Forumite
    Hi, thank you. Yep on the notice it says 10 mins, so I'll have a look at the grace period.
    ����
  • Redx
    Redx Posts: 38,084
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    yep , check clause #13 of the BPA CoP and also check recent popla appeals that were made using GRACE PERIODS and clause #13 as a separate defence point , then use and adapt one of their already written paragraphs
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards