Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • Labinopper
    • By Labinopper 10th Feb 18, 9:45 PM
    • 18Posts
    • 12Thanks
    ParkingEye(Lie?) and Town Quay Southampton
    • #1
    • 10th Feb 18, 9:45 PM
    ParkingEye(Lie?) and Town Quay Southampton 10th Feb 18 at 9:45 PM
    Good evening all,

    I'm just writing hoping for some advice, I'm hoping this is as clear cut as I think but maybe you guys can give me some pointers on things I may have missed.

    So the scenario:
    Driver went into Town Quay car park in Southampton to pick someone up from their ferry, however they had missed the original ferry so driver waiting around for a half hour for the next ferry to come in. Today (10 days after the incident) we recieved a letter from ParkingEye stating a fine of £100 is due for "either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted" It does go on to mention about POFA 2012, however from this post I found from September 2016 which is at the exact same car park (hxxp:// it seems that POFA does not apply to this specific car park, or atleast it didn't then.

    I haven't yet begun any communication with them but have seen the advice about not informing them who the driver was. Am I correct in assuming I just need to use the default appeals form from the NEWBIE thread (should I mention how this car park is not deemed as relevant land by POPLA and quote the case number provided in the above linked thread?) await their rejection letter, contact POPLA with the appeal reasoning being not relevant land and hope for the best?

    I'll admit as this is the first parking fine we have received we don't fully understand all the legal jargon around the POFA bit or the byelaws which I believe are what affects POFA 2012

    I'll grab a copy of the draft and adjust it accordingly (I think its pretty read to go though isn't it?) with any adjustments you suggest before I email them. Do we still need to obtain pictures etc as proof? as this car park is across the solent from us (we live on the Isle of Wight) and with the price of the ferry these days it'll cost us the price of the fine to even get there!!

    Thanks in advance and I hope I have read thoroughly through what we need to do (as I don't want to needlessly waste your time!)

Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 10th Feb 18, 9:51 PM
    • 37,590 Posts
    • 84,536 Thanks
    • #2
    • 10th Feb 18, 9:51 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Feb 18, 9:51 PM
    Send the initial appeal using the NEWBIES template exactly as it is. Unless you know for sure that this is not relevant land, then I wouldn't use that.

    Don't use something you don't understand as you could end up digging a hole for yourself.

    However, you have time, I think, to research this and confirm whether on not the land is relevant. So, do your research before sending the keeper appeal, but don't miss the appeal deadline.

    Hopefully you will tell the driver, if you know who it is, not to park somewhere they should not, as that is the reason why these parking scammers exist.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Labinopper
    • By Labinopper 10th Feb 18, 10:03 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    • #3
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:03 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:03 PM
    Unless you know for sure that this is not relevant land, then I wouldn't use that.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Whilst I don't personally the link stated is from a reply from POPLA in reference to that car park where the POPLA assessor states " In his grounds for appeal, the appellant has stated that the land on which the car park is situated is not 'relevant land'. This is defined by PoFA 2012 under paragraph 3(1)(c) as any land other than 'land..on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control'. From the evidence provided to POPLA, I can only conclude that the car park is indeed on land under statutory control and cannot be considered 'relevant land' for the purposes of PoFA 2012. As the site is not located on 'relevant land', the operator is unable to rely on PoFA 2012 in order to transfer liability to the hirer. Additionally, as I am not satisfied the appellant was the driver, I am unable to conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly, and I must allow this appeal."

    However, unfortunately, I cannot find what evidence was submitted to provoke that kind of response. Have done some more research since your reply and Edna Basher posted in another thread this post hxxp:// with a map to the area showing the port's boundary (I couldn't link directly to the map) to which the author of the thread posted a reply showing where he was parked (the vehicle was in pretty much the same place, still well within the port boundary)
    Last edited by Labinopper; 10-02-2018 at 10:31 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,677 Thanks
    • #4
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Feb 18, 10:19 PM
    Sounds reasonable to add a sentence saying you know that the location has previously been found as fact by POPLA, to be ''not relevant land'' and covered by Port Byelaws. As such, you cannot b held liable as keeper, and the driver will not be named so PE should not waste your time with the usual begging letter asking who was driving.

    May as well be robust, PE are bullies. I hate bullies. They know who they are.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Feb 18, 8:36 AM
    • 19,848 Posts
    • 31,345 Thanks
    • #5
    • 11th Feb 18, 8:36 AM
    • #5
    • 11th Feb 18, 8:36 AM
    It was also for this location where another POPLA Assessor found for PE on the basis that while the bylaws listed a range of 'vehicles' (including 'any machinery on wheels') that as the term 'car' was not specifically included, then the bylaws didn't apply and PoFA did.

    There are also further links to PePiPoo in the thread below to have a read through, to give you a fuller picture about this location.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Feb 18, 9:48 AM
    • 10,254 Posts
    • 10,145 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 11th Feb 18, 9:48 AM
    • #6
    • 11th Feb 18, 9:48 AM
    Is it, or isn't it?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • carl4954
    • By carl4954 11th Feb 18, 4:10 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    • #7
    • 11th Feb 18, 4:10 PM
    Council owned ''not relevant land''
    • #7
    • 11th Feb 18, 4:10 PM
    Hi Labinopper.
    This tact may prove helpful to a number of people.

    I went down a similar road with POPLA, when I received a PCN in Meridan Centre, Havant in Jan18 First take the full time allowance before making your appeal, you only get the one shot.
    ParkingEye are well practised in their submission, which they present after you have shown your cards to POPLA. You need to think like a solicitor as both groups are well practised in the appeals procedure so you need to provide proof with your statement.

    Subsequently to my first appeal and during the second phase of the POPLA process I made a second refused submission based on the ''not relevant land''. 10 days after my failed appeal I still have not received a further demand for payment of the original PE PCN so I think my second submission has legs.
    I stumbled onto some interesting facts and letters from the Department for Transport.
    In my second submission I went after the Landowner in the PE T&C's. I found out that the Landowner or Freeholder is in fact a council and that using contract law, its not legal or illegal, but is in contravention of DfT guidance that councils should use the correct legislation as laid down by parliament.
    I found that the information on council owned freehold can be found on the councils website, usually under a search for 'Asset'. I suggest you go to the Borough and County Councils websites. If that does not yield results go for a Freedom of Information Act request, it free. It took 24hrs to get a reply from the website I used from making the requests. Again go after both councils.
    I have added below the body of my second submission with reference to Havant Borough Council, so you will need to adjust it to suit your case. You may find it helpful. Remember to list your sources of information or provide copies with your appeal.
    By the way the definitions in italics are from a widely used legal dictionary.

    I submit that the processes in this matter, PTL:###### - POPLA Verification Code: ######
    contravene the of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Traffic Management Act 2004 and Department for Transport guidance to Civil Enforcement Areas and should cease and that my appeal be upheld forthwith.

    My submission
    RTRA - Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
    TMA - Traffic Management Act 2004
    DfT - Department for Transport
    POFA - Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
    POPLA – Parking on Private Land Appeals
    Landlord - A lessor of real property; the owner or possessor of an estate in land or a rental property,
    who, in an exchange for rent, leases it to another individual known as the tenant.
    Landowner - possessor, estate owner, freeholder, holder of legal title, landed proprietor, landlord, owner of an estate in land, owner of land, owner of real estate, owner of real property, owner of the fee, property holder, property owner, proprietor, real property holder, real property owner, titleholder
    Freehold - A life estate, an interest in land the duration of which is restricted to the life or lives of a
    particular person or persons holding it, or an estate in fee, an interest in property that is unconditional
    and represents the broadest ownership interest recognized by law.
    HBC - Havant Borough Council – Public Body
    ALMO – Arm Length Management Organisation
    Fraud - A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or
    misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is
    intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
    Extorsion - Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
    CEA - Civil Enforcement Areas
    CEO - Civil Enforcement Officer
    PE – ParkingEye – Private Car Parking Operator/Enforcement
    T&C’s – Terms and Conditions
    ParkingEye - Case
    Vehicle ###### failed to meet the posted T&C’s at the Meridian Centre Car Park, Havant and so
    the vehicle is subject to a civil charge for a Parking Charge.
    POPLA appeal

    I request the following evidence from ParkingEye
    who the Landlord is for the Meridian Centre Car Park
    who their Client is for the Meridian Centre Car Park

    Parking Eye terms and conditions.
    In the posted T&C’s PE state:- provide a picture of the biggest sign you can find with the T&C's on.

    ParkingEye Ltd (Company No:5134454) is authorised by the Landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf, and have been so operating on this site since December 2011

    With some research within the HBC web site I am able to prove, with certainty, that the Landlord/Landowner/Freehold is Havant Borough Council, by their own admission in their document -
    Car Parking: Havant Town Centre
    Page 12
    This multi-storey car park is operated under long leasehold by the company managing the Meridian
    Centre although the Council owns the freehold of the land.

    HBC also admit to using a ALMO to manage the site which is in direct conflict with the RTRA & TMA and guidance by the DfT.

    The Meridian Centre Car Parking is not ‘private land used for parking’ and so does not falls under the scope of POFA Schedule 4. As per guidance by the DfT .PE have no right to operate on ‘public land’. Ergo they have no right to use POFA Schedule 4. to
    pursue vehicles for civil ‘Parking Charges’ as it has been since December 2011.
    HBC became and ‘Agent’ of Hampshire County Council in 2008 to operate a CEA within the bounds of HBC area. At that time HBC must have been or made aware of this contravention of RTRA & TMA.
    HBC Parking Policy states: -
    Enforce parking regulations effectively and introduce measures to assist, such as residents’ parking and additional opportunities likely to emerge from the Traffic Management Act and other national initiatives.
    HBC Parking Policy is freely available on the HBC web site

    The Meridian Centre Car Parking is not ‘private land used for parking’ both Havant Borough Council and PE are acting against the will of Parliament, Government policy and the expectations of local electorates and in contravention of RTRA, the TMA 2004, DfT guidance and HBC own Parking Policy with regards to this car park.
    In 2014 the all local authorities in England operating CEA received a letter from the DfT in regard to using ALMO.
    The then Transport Minister Robert Goodwill points out that they must not attempt to enforce off street parking using contract law rather than under the Traffic Management Act 2004. This letter came about due to a challenge to the actions of Westminster Council
    The warning was made in a letter sent by the then Transport Minister Robert Goodwill.
    By their own admission, PE terms and conditions clearly states PE agreement is with the Landowner, in this instance HBC. PE have, with the authorisation of the Landowner, HBC, systematically misused/misrepresented POFA Schedule 4. to obtain the registered keepers details and therefore fraudulently pursue the registered keeper to extort a fee for a parking charge of the good people who have used this publicly
    owned parking structure since December 2011
    I submit that the processes in this matter, PTL:##### - POPLA Verification Code: #####
    contravene the of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Traffic Management Act 2004 and Department for Transport guidance to Civil Enforcement Areas and should cease and that my appeal be upheld forthwith.
    • Labinopper
    • By Labinopper 5th Mar 18, 8:46 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    • #8
    • 5th Mar 18, 8:46 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Mar 18, 8:46 PM
    Sorry guys, went on holiday and honestly forgot about this upon my return!!

    I have stupidly left myself with just one day to appeal. One query I do have of you all however, I recieved a second letter, in reference to the same event, but seemed slightly different layout (updated form maybe?) And I have two questions

    Firstly, the incident happened on the 31st January, Date Issued was the 7th of February, and the Date on the letter is the 16th of February, does this mean they have exceeded their 14 day period? As said this is a second letter, but being cheeky and all that haha.

    More importantly, on the back of the letter has changed slightly, the POFA bit has been removed from the first one, and replaced with a short paragraph about ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, and "The Case Law" in reference to that situation. Nowhere on the letter does it say anything about POFA?

    Having read the note more thoroughly it states at the top of the form "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE REMINDER" Is this perhaps a trap to lure people into believing they have a golden ticket? All of this is so confusing for me I'm not gonna lie!

    Thanks once again guys, and I will get to work on my appeal whilst awaiting your responses!

    Thanks Carl4954, I have read through your post, I believe that unfortunately doesn't help my situation though as the car park in question belongs to a private company, however is within harbour boundaries. Thank you though! =D
    and Thank you Umkomaas and The Deep for your links, I will keep the relevant land section out of my appeal and keep it as default for this first appeal. Thank you all.
    Last edited by Labinopper; 05-03-2018 at 8:49 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Mar 18, 11:28 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,677 Thanks
    • #9
    • 5th Mar 18, 11:28 PM
    • #9
    • 5th Mar 18, 11:28 PM
    More importantly, on the back of the letter has changed slightly, the POFA bit has been removed from the first one, and replaced with a short paragraph about ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, and "The Case Law" in reference to that situation. Nowhere on the letter does it say anything about POFA?
    So what, that's just the reminder - unimportant, it can say what it wants, it's not the NTK.

    You just need to submit online, ticking 'registered keeper' the template appeal, and as already said:

    Sounds reasonable to add a sentence saying you know that the location has previously been found as fact by POPLA, to be ''not relevant land'' and covered by Port Byelaws. As such, you cannot be held liable as keeper, and the driver will not be named so PE should not waste your time with the usual begging letter asking who was driving.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 6th Mar 18, 7:49 AM
    • 10,254 Posts
    • 10,145 Thanks
    The Deep
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.

    Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Labinopper
    • By Labinopper 8th May 18, 4:56 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    So its been 2 months, but I thought I'd update...


    I feel so good right now, wasn't sure what to expect, but its finally over, and I won, so thats good, now I can go and spend the £60 on something worthwhile for us. I didn't draft my appeal with you guys as I realised, somewhat foolishly, that I had left it until day 28, so I researched, found some bits, wrote more bits, did bits to the bits, and I wound up with something looking half decent so I rolled with it. I did attach some evidence but realistically next to none (a map of harbour land, an edited image with where the vehicle was parked, clearly inside harbour land, and a copy of my communications with ParkingEye) I pointed out that it is on ParkingEye to provide the evidence of clear signage, and not for me to provide evidence of the contrary, and I challenged ParkingEye's response to my appeal in that it sounded extremely automated, answered none of my questions, and therefore I felt it had hampered my ability to defend myself and challenged their own appeals process (I felt brave)

    For the full appeal read on, otherwise, thanks for reading this far and for all the help you all have given (I read alot of your posts in other threads so even if you didn't post here you probably helped!) =D

    CAR PARK 31/01/2018, VEHICLE REG: **** ***
    POPLA Ref: 6060798502

    I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against the above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

    1. Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to Non-relevant land where Byelaws apply

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    3. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

    4. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

    5. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards and there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.
    6. My appeal appears to have been disregarded without any due consideration or adequate response.
    Here are the detailed appeal points.

    1. Parking at Southampton Town Quay is subject to statutory control

    Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 states that in this Schedule !!!8216;relevant land!!!8217; means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

    a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
    b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
    c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

    Although ParkingEye!!!8217;s PCN makes no mention of Southampton Town Quay being subject to statutory control, parking at this site is subject to Associated British Ports Southampton Harbour Byelaws 2003 (the ABP Byelaws) this location is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of POFA 2012.

    I include with my submission a copy of the ABP Byelaws, drawing POPLA!!!8217;s attention to Part IV (Goods and Road and Rail Traffic), in particular the terms of Paragraphs 37 and 39 which specifically refer to leaving vehicles unattended (i.e. parking) thereby confirming that parking on the Port of Southampton!!!8217;s land is subject to statutory control.

    I also draw POPLA's attention to the map on Page 20 of the ABP Byelaws which confirms that Southampton Town Quay lies within the boundaries of the Port of Southampton for the purpose of the ABP Byelaws. I have also included a more detailed ABP map which defines more clearly the boundaries of the Port of Southampton.
    For clarification I have highlighted in this image the approximate location of the vehicle at the time of this incident.

    POPLA has previously determined that Southampton Town Quay is not relevant land; I refer you to POPLA case ref.6060755093 and case ref.6062356150

    Therefore ParkingEye has no lawful right to rely upon POFA 2012 to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle!!!8217;s keeper and whilst I have informed the driver of this case, I am under no obligation to disclose the information as to who the driver was at the time.

    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was 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. 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 parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed 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 show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    !!!8220;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 !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; 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.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT capable of transferring the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    I also note case ref.6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law stated:
    ''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.''

    This is relevant due to the fact that, although the case she refers to is talking about the fact that ParkingEye did not use POFA on that occasion, on this occasion ParkingEye are unable to use POFA to transfer the charge to myself as the keeper of the vehicle.

    3. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

    Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

    "I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.")

    4. No valid contract with landowner

    It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have !!!8216;authority limit clauses!!!8217; that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye v Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
    In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company!!!8217;s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

    It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided !!!8216;witness statements!!!8217; instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner!!!8217;s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

    5. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver

    Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

    As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication

    !!!8220;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!!!8221;

    The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

    The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

    6. My appeal appears to have been disregarded without any due consideration or adequate response.
    Despite the fact that Parking Eye have my details on file as the Registered Keeper you!!!8217;ll notice their reply is addressed to !!!8220;Dear Sir / Madam!!!8221; which implies that this is simply a generic letter with no personalised content relevant to my case beyond the time, location, and vehicle being driven.
    Further I asked three questions of Parking Eye, none of which were answered in any way. When asked if the charge represents the damages for breaches of contract Parking Eye declined to comment. When asked to provide dated photos of the signs that Parking Eye claim to be on site and which is the basis of any contract formed Parking Eye declined to attach them. When asked to provide all photographs taken of the vehicle Parking Eye again failed to respond. From the total lack of response to my appeal I can only conclude that it either was not read, or was read but decided that Parking Eye had no need to prove that their signage was visible. I would add to this that the Parking Machine within the car park does take Cash and can only assume that a representative of Parking Eye attends the car park regularly to empty this machine, and I would further assume that Due Diligence would ensure that Parking Eye make every effort to ensure and record that their signs are both visible and not obstructed on a regular basis as without these signs being clearly visible any form of contract formed is void.
    This leads me to the conclusion that their appeal process is flawed in that it appears to have either remained unread, and simply a generic template response was sent out which fails to adequately address nearly all the points raised in my appeal, or that ParkingEye is unable to provide answers to these questions due to lack of evidence. Their response naturally has a negative impact upon my appeal because without their clarification of these points I am unable to provide counter-evidence to dispute or disprove their responses and as such feel that they have failed to provide any evidence to the answer of those questions, and can only presume this is because they are unable to provide evidence and so have instead chosen to ignore these questions.

    This concludes my appeal.

    Yours sincerely,
    Miss *******
    Last edited by Labinopper; 08-05-2018 at 5:06 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th May 18, 5:00 PM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,677 Thanks
    Yay, well done!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,380Posts Today

8,429Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Pownerpuff: @MartinSLewis thanks to your guidance, my monthly outgoings (bills) are £400 cheaper PER MONTH than they were 2 years ago!!?

  • The programme is primarily aimed at parents not kids. But I think mid teens upwards is likely fine

  • Even if u don't have kids, Id love u to watch my 10 things ur kids need to know doco tonight ITV 9pm. It mixes mone?

  • Follow Martin