POPLA Appeal ParkingEye St. Martin's Precinct

SalomonAssassin · 7 April 2018 at 2:36AM

Hi, I'm hoping someone could just a quick check of my POPLA appeal before I send it off and make sure everything is correct and relevant. I've read through the newies thread and to be honest have mainly copied from other peoples appeals but I did write most of my section 2 so would appreciate a once over.

The situation is that in February this year the driver parked in a car park which allows 3 hours of free parking. The ANPR cameras state the driver was in the car park for 3 hours and 13 minutes. This is only 13 minutes over so my main appeal point is grace periods but I think the signage is inadequate too but I've listed quite a few things for the old 'throw the kitchen sink' approach.

The driver has not been identified to ParkingEye and all I have done so far is send the initial appeal in the newbies thread word for word in order to get my POPLA Ref which I now have.

You can find my initial (redacted) draft at https:[slash][slash]drive.google.com/file/d/1NUlBT5FIWSieWbAGFnZhEpeKCNFmHTX3/view?usp=sharing

Replace [slash][slash] with an actual forward slashes in the link above - if someone could post the link as a URL I'd appreciate it as I can't.

Umkomaas · 7 April 2018 at 7:00AM

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NUlBT5FIWSieWbAGFnZhEpeKCNFmHTX3/view?usp=sharing
There's your (now live) link.

Just a quick flick through your appeal - not the text, just the pictures (too early in the morning for any detailed reading).

Personally, I don't think many of the pics help you as they stand. I'd ditch the ones using flash, unless you are arguing about signage content. A quick glance suggests standard PE sign layout and content, and I don't think you'll find there's much wrong with it (notwithstanding anything you've argued about the wording in your text - as I've said, I've not read it).

Those without flash still show the presence of signage and that might be enough to convince an assessor that they were sufficiently prominent to need the driver to go over to read them.

So I'd only use pics that basically show nothing. It is for PE to prove that at the time (of night) of the parking event the signage was prominent. They are highly unlikely to have time stamped photos of them are likely to show stock (daylight) photos to POPLA. This allows you, in the rebuttal phase of the process, to nail those as being inappropriate.

Don't do PE's job for them by showing photos that may be misinterpreted by an assessor - less is definitely more in this particular context.

A final point - I don't see a 'No Keeper Liability' section in your appeal. Was the PE NtK PoFA compliant, especially carrying the PoFA warning on the reverse side of the NtK?

[Deleted User] · 7 April 2018 at 9:02AM

That version of a PE sign is, of course, pretty much identical to the one in Beavis. The signage was regarded as unambiguous.

Others are much more familiar with POPLA than me, but I don't think a signage point is much of a runner. Other arguments may be...

The_Deep · 7 April 2018 at 9:36AM

The sign at page 3 is, imo, unfit for purpose. I refer to the raft of unpunctuated small print at the bottom.

Acceptable perhaps if you are building an aircraft carrier, but to park one's car at a shopping centre, it is unreasonable, to expect people to read and absorb it all. Why do they even need to? Surely such a over wordy contract is designed to entrap.

I would suggest that OP dissects it and points out its shortcomings in the PoPLA appeal. Also, FWIIW, it is discriminatory towards BB holders and parents with small children.

Can one reject a contract in whole because one objects to part?

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

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.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

SalomonAssassin · 7 April 2018 at 10:17AM

Thank you all for your initial replies.

Umkomaas, I have taken on board your point regarding the pictures and less is more and have removed the pictures with the flash on (though not from the online link as I haven't reuploaded yet). Also, the reason I didn't write a 'No Keeper Liability' section is that the NtK has a big section on the back talking about PoFA 2012 (so not a golden ticket) and it was issued 4 days after the incident so I couldn't see anything to imply it is not PoFA compliant.

Johnersh, I did notice the high similarities to the Beavis sign which is why I haven't really mentioned much about the content other than the ambiguous wording of "Failure to comply with this" (compared to Beavis' wording "Failure to comply with the following") and the tiny text at the bottom coupled with the height of the signs on the ANPR poles. But my main point about the signage in general was the complete lack of entrance signs for the normal entry point through the other car park. As there is nothing on entry and there are no lights at all in the PE car park it's very easy to completely miss all the signs.

Umkomaas · 7 April 2018 at 10:30AM

Also, the reason I didn't write a 'No Keeper Liability' section is that the NtK has a big section on the back talking about PoFA 2012 (so not a golden ticket) and it was issued 4 days after the incident so I couldn't see anything to imply it is not PoFA compliant.

Thanks for confirming that. I just didn't want it to slip by if a 'golden ticket' had been issued. You can be sure that if the PoFA warning is included in the NtK and has been issued within time, it will be compliant.

If I get time later, I'll have a read through - but much later today.

SalomonAssassin · 7 April 2018 at 10:56AM

The_Deep wrote: »

I would suggest that OP dissects it and points out its shortcomings in the PoPLA appeal

I've just had a read through this small print and it mostly talks about the forming of the contract, how they will capture data and then how that data will be processed and who it will be shared with so I don't see much to flag up but then I'm not too sure what to be looking out for to be honest.

I'll post the text below in case anyone else fancies a long and boring read!!

ParkingEye Ltd (Company No: 5134454) is authorised by the landowner to operate this private car park for and on its behalf. We are not responsible for the car park surface, damage or loss to or from motor vehicles or general site safety. Parking is subject to the terms and conditions that apply within this notice (the "Parking Contract"). By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the "Parking Contract") and are authorised to park only if you follow these correctly, including making payment where directed, entering your registration details via the payment and/or permit systems. If you fail to comply you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking (the "Parking Charge"). This Parking Contract shall form the entire agreement between the parties. Any proposal to waive any part of this Parking Contract shall not be valid unless confirmed in writing by ParkingEye Ltd. By entering this private car park, you consent, for the purpose of car park management to: the capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras and/or by the attendant and to the processing of this data, together with any data provided by you or others via the payment or permit systems; correspondence; telephone; or in person, by Parking Eye Ltd and any authorised sub-contractor to check compliance with the Parking Contract. Furthermore, you consent to the processing of this data to request registered keeper details from the DVLA, where the Parking Contract is not adhered to and a) enforcement is undertaken remotely via ANPR; or b) the Parking Charge notice is issued manually by the attendant, but remains unpaid. Parking Charges incurred: a) will be notified to the registered keeper by post, where the ANP system identifies non-compliance with the Parking Contract, and may be reissued to the relevant driver on receipt of the driver's valid name and address; or b) will be notified to the driver, where an attendant identifies non-compliance with the Parking Contract, and may subsequently be notified to the registered keeper. Personal data may also be shared with the BPA, POPLA, mail service providers, credit reference agents, collection agents or solicitors for this purpose and any authorised sub-contractors. A reduction of at least 40% of the Parking Charge will be available for a period of 14 days. Failure to pay the Parking Charge within this period will result in the full amount becoming payable. Where Parking Charges remain unpaid beyond 28 days, recovery charges in respect of further action may apply. A charge reflecting the cost to ParkingEye may apply for payments made with a credit/debit card.

The_Deep · 7 April 2018 at 11:05AM

I don't see much to flag up but then I'm not too sure what to be looking out for to be honest.

Nevertheless, it forms part of the contract, and should be read.

I have just received a draft contract from my solicitor to buy a house. The contract is far shorter than that of a contract to park a car.

Umkomaas · 7 April 2018 at 8:01PM

I think you need to have another look at your Grace Periods. The BPA Code of Practice of 7 Jan 2018 is not as prescriptive about 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after. Look at 13.1.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

So then you need to say that nothing makes the driver aware that the parking time commences at entry - and this is all that PE are measuring - entry time. You then need to estimate the amount of time taken after passing the ANPR camera to circle round and find a suitable parking spot (comment especially if it was a tatty potholed bombsite type, ensuring you weren't going to damage your car, because PE take no responsibility if that happens), park up, look for the relevant sign, go over to it in the dark and attempt to read it, then make your decision to stay = x minutes (the 'reasonable time' as in 13.1).

A similar exercise at the end of parking, time to leave the car park, cars queuing to access a busy road = y minutes. x+y = 13 minutes. But it needs to tally with the 3 hour point and the time shown as the exit time.

On signage make sure you refer to any other other signs relating to car park instructions not put up by PE (I see you've commented on the 'Service Vehicle's only') which causes doubt and confusion as which apply and which do not and which if any are part of the contract, or are not. All take time to read to decipher their standing. If there's a plethora of retailers' signs too in the car park, say that they too add to the confusion.

Hope this quick-skim overview helps. If you have some reasonable time before your POPLA deadline, see if others want to comment.

Coupon-mad · 8 April 2018 at 1:20AM

If you have a week or so before needing to put this in, I am tempted to try the new ANPR information/ICO CoP mentioned in another thread and write you another appeal point to replace #6.

Can't do that tonight!

SalomonAssassin · 8 April 2018 at 7:14PM

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think you need to have another look at your Grace Periods. The BPA Code of Practice of 7 Jan 2018 is not as prescriptive about 10 minutes before and 10 minutes after. Look at 13.1.

Ah OK thanks for that. I wasn't sure if I fell under 13.1 or 13.2 as I'm not exactly sure what it means when it says "If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted" in the CoP. As I have used the example from the newbies guide as a template and lifted a lot of stuff from that and adapted it I did have some points regarding 13.1 but took them out as I thought I fell under 13.2. I'll go back and make some changes based on your suggestions and post a new revision later tonight hopefully.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If you have a week or so before needing to put this in, I am tempted to try the new ANPR information/ICO CoP mentioned in another thread and write you another appeal point to replace #6.

Can't do that tonight!

The appeal rejection letter is dated 16th March so I assume the 28 days starts from that date so gotta be sent before Friday 13th April. If you get a chance then that would be brilliant but obviously no worries if not.

POPLA Appeal ParkingEye St. Martin's Precinct

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free