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@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 11th Sep 18, 7:08 PM
    • 411Posts
    • 262Thanks
    misterbarlow
    Parkingeye PCN {POPLA APPEAL WON}
    • #1
    • 11th Sep 18, 7:08 PM
    Parkingeye PCN {POPLA APPEAL WON} 11th Sep 18 at 7:08 PM
    Hi guys,

    Just taken on fighting a charge on behalf of a family member who hasn’t a clue!

    You guys successfully helped me get one cancelled a few years back, so I am not totally green to this whole scam, I have re-read the sticky as things change over the years, so just thought I’d check I am on the right track.

    The driver attended a job interview at an office complex adj to a motorway services.
    Their car park was full, so they told the driver to park in the services as they’d only be an hour or so.
    The driver did this, took the interview and drove home not realising how long they had kept them, six days later they received a postal PCN from ParkingEye for an alleged overstay, claiming on a 2hr limit, that the driver stayed for 2hrs 20mins, via ANPR photos.
    Charge thereafter for 2-24hrs was £15.

    The reverse of the NTK quotes POFA.

    We cannot complain to a landowner, we contacted the company, they said the services opposite are not their land and they are not on it, so nothing to do with them so cannot help, and the driver did not visit or was a patron of any of the franchises in the actual services, so we cannot really complain to any of them.


    We have appealed online as keeper using the template, and have now received the standard rejection with POPLA code, so we can now go through & cut up some appeals on here and bang out our own POPLA appeal.


    Am I correct in assuming grace periods is the main argument here?? 10mins before and after puts the stay perfectly at the allowed two hours!!

    And then followed with poor signage/no contract, landowner consent, & flawed ANPR!!

    All good?? Anything else I should tag on??

    Once it’s drafted I’ll slap it up & hopefully someone can give it a once over….

    Thanks…
    Last edited by misterbarlow; 10-11-2018 at 1:13 PM.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Sep 18, 7:17 PM
    • 19,963 Posts
    • 25,264 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 11th Sep 18, 7:17 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Sep 18, 7:17 PM
    yes, do those and anything else that is in recent popla appeals and the newbies faq thread post #3


    post the proposed draft when its ready, for critique
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Sep 18, 2:50 AM
    • 64,051 Posts
    • 76,677 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 18, 2:50 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Sep 18, 2:50 AM
    and the driver did not visit or was a patron of any of the franchises in the actual services, so we cannot really complain to any of them.
    Worth a try...surely !

    Starbucks etc. have been good at cancelling ParkingEye PCNs at services for years. Nothing to lose and ALWAYS exhaust all avenues of complaint, BEFORE POPLA as it can't work after you lose at POPLA (it's then too late, PE always tell landowner/retailers!).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 15th Sep 18, 12:45 PM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 18, 12:45 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 18, 12:45 PM
    ok, so we contacted a vendor at the services who said they are there under licence from the services owner, and so cannot help and to contact the services company.
    I have done that, and this is the drivel I had back..

    May I explain that Welcome Break have always charged for parking after a free stay period. Parking Eye were instructed by us in 2010 to monitor and enforce the regulations detailed on the signage in our car parks using ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) with payment terminals located inside the building and prior to this we used the services of another car park operator who adopted a manned attendant approach.

    You will notice that the same parking restrictions apply at all other motorway service areas in the UK such at Moto, Extra and Road Chef i.e. 2-3 hours free parking, after which time, parking tariffs apply. The 2 hour free parking policy at Welcome Break is made clear by signage at the entrance and throughout each of the main parking areas.

    Welcome Break; along with other Motorway Service Area operators have a requirement to manage our car parks as it is important that we are able to provide enough parking spaces for regular traveller and long distance travellers. We are unable to provide this if our car parks are full of long term parking vehicles. By charging for parking after the 2 hour free stay, we ensure that our car parks have enough spaces for visitors.

    The government advice is that motorists should take a break of at least 20 minutes every two hours and all motorway service providers need to provide free short term parking up to 2 hours. Welcome Break, along with other motorway service providers, have a 2 hour free parking policy.

    As a result, Welcome Break has instructed Parking Eye to manage, monitor and enforce Welcome Break parking regulations on our behalf.

    There is a process in place for customers who receive parking charge notices that they believe to be unfair or unreasonable. Parking Eye runs an extensive and fully audited appeals service with each appeal being looked at on a case by case basis. If Parking Eye rejects your appeal, you have a further opportunity to appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals Service). This is an independent body for assessing parking charges on private land. The decisions made by this body are binding on Parking Eye but not the motorist.

    There is signage detailing the parking charges on the entrances to the car parks and also on the main walkways to the main buildings to highlight that charges apply after the free 2 hour period. The terms and conditions of our car parks are outlined within the signage located within the site. We strive to ensure that these are as clear and apparent as possible and can confirm that we believe there is plenty of notice given to users of our site so that they are made aware of these terms and conditions. In relation to signage, All Parking Eye signage fully adheres to industry guidelines as set out by the British Parking Association.

    The appeals process is managed directly through Parking Eye and you can make your appeal via the Parking Eye website:

    Welcome Break can confirm that Parking Eye have full authority to act as an agent on behalf of ourselves as the land holder to conduct car park management services on our sites, this includes making contracts in their own name through the signage located on our sites.

    If you feel your Parking charge has been received unfairly than please follow the appropriate steps of appeal with Parking Eye clearly stating your reasons why, unfortunately at this point Welcome Break would not be able to offer any further comment on this matter and would ask that you direct any points that you wish to raise with Parking Eye directly.

    Kind Regards

    Also have have cut and chopped a POPLA appeal together from some in the sticky, and thrown a few bits of my own in if anyone could take a look..??
    Last edited by misterbarlow; 19-09-2018 at 7:24 PM.
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 17th Sep 18, 11:52 AM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    • #5
    • 17th Sep 18, 11:52 AM
    • #5
    • 17th Sep 18, 11:52 AM
    just a friendly bump, as I seem to have sunk without trace to page 5 over the wknd....
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 17th Sep 18, 12:56 PM
    • 3,977 Posts
    • 4,762 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #6
    • 17th Sep 18, 12:56 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Sep 18, 12:56 PM
    Which bits are your own? So we dont waste time revieiwng the same exact appela...
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 17th Sep 18, 2:27 PM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    • #7
    • 17th Sep 18, 2:27 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Sep 18, 2:27 PM
    Mainly parts 2&6...

    [edit]
    Have sunk without trace to page 8 again after 4days, nobody found time to review my appeal yet, not a problem, so I have deleted for now and submitted to popla..

    If a winner i'll repost!!!
    Last edited by misterbarlow; 19-09-2018 at 7:25 PM.
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 17th Sep 18, 4:14 PM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    • #8
    • 17th Sep 18, 4:14 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Sep 18, 4:14 PM
    Also, for info, just came across this video posted a few days ago from my local MP Stephen Doughty, re parking companies..

    https://www.facebook.com/StephenDoughtyMP/videos/542818572836763/
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 17th Sep 18, 4:24 PM
    • 20,270 Posts
    • 31,999 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 17th Sep 18, 4:24 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Sep 18, 4:24 PM
    Stephen Doughty has been admirably involved in the Parliamentary dates on this. Quite an ally for the cause. Have you contacted him about your situation?

    Here are the Parliamentary debates if you've not previously viewed them.

    SIR GREG KNIGHT PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILL

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

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

    https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/d5550515-cce9-4185-83ec-754dadb7524a
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 17-09-2018 at 8:22 PM. Reason: Resolving sticky keyboard syndrome, fracking up my input with spurious text, making me appear illiterate!
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Sep 18, 10:18 PM
    • 64,051 Posts
    • 76,677 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    and all motorway service providers need to provide free short term parking up to 2 hours.
    That's not correct. In fact it's the opposite.

    The DFT rules on MSAs state that the services must provide free parking of 'at least' two hours:

    https://motorwayservicesonline.co.uk/MSA_Policy
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 12th Oct 18, 7:40 AM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    A quicky re POPLA appeal..

    We submitted the appeal on 17/09..
    Been checking every few days and it just says awaiting operator evidence..
    Now today 12/10 it says box 2 ticked, operator information and evidence received..
    but it then says

    "Your appeal is being assessed
    We have received information and evidence from the parking operator about your appeal. We have started assessing your appeal. You do not need to take any action."

    with no further info about what PE sent, how I view it, or the opportunity to rebut it?? Is that normal?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 12th Oct 18, 7:53 AM
    • 3,769 Posts
    • 6,189 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    The DFT rules on MSAs state that the services must provide free parking of 'at least' two hours:
    According to the DFT's 2013 Circular, this phrase appears on page 17

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

    Free parking for up to 2 hours minimum for all vehicles permitted to use the road served by the facility
    On page 18

    B19. At all types of site, where a charge is to be levied for parking beyond the mandatory two free hours, the charging regime must be clearly displayed within both the parking areas and the amenity building. Drivers must at all times be afforded the opportunity to pay the charge on the site, before leaving and without the necessity to use a mobile phone. Cash payments must be accepted.
    PE are not ones to get caught out on a technicality such as the difference between up to / at least
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 29th Oct 18, 11:51 AM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    A quicky re POPLA appeal..

    We submitted the appeal on 17/09..
    Been checking every few days and it just says awaiting operator evidence..
    Now today 12/10 it says box 2 ticked, operator information and evidence received..
    but it then says

    "Your appeal is being assessed
    We have received information and evidence from the parking operator about your appeal. We have started assessing your appeal. You do not need to take any action."

    with no further info about what PE sent, how I view it, or the opportunity to rebut it?? Is that normal?
    Originally posted by misterbarlow
    Bumped.

    This situation still stands, now 17 days after the appeal shifted to stage 2 "operator evidence received", we still have not heard anything at all from POPLA or been shown or sent any evidence/information the operator has provided to them, and the appeal tracker still shows the same as above.!

    Is this normal??
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Oct 18, 12:24 PM
    • 20,270 Posts
    • 31,999 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Phone POPLA - ask what's happening.

    Before doing so, why not check the PE website, going as if to pay your PCN, and see what the status of the charge is?
    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.
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 29th Oct 18, 4:25 PM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    Checked PE site, still says £100 outstanding..
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 29th Oct 18, 4:27 PM
    • 20,270 Posts
    • 31,999 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Checked PE site, still says £100 outstanding..
    Originally posted by misterbarlow
    Plan B then - phone POPLA.
    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.
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 8th Nov 18, 4:24 PM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    I chose to email Popla, finally heard back from them today!!

    The parking operator has 21 days to submit a case file from the date you register an appeal to POPLA.
    I can see that the parking operator has NOT provided a case file to POPLA and therefore, we will be assessing the case based on the operator failing to do so.
    This is the reason why there is no information to view.

    Once a decision has been reached, we will email you and let you know the outcome.
    The fact they haven't even bothered attempting to fight my appeal is promising!!
    Last edited by misterbarlow; 08-11-2018 at 4:33 PM.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Nov 18, 6:10 PM
    • 9,346 Posts
    • 12,294 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I chose to email Popla, finally heard back from them today!!

    The fact they haven't even bothered attempting to fight my appeal is promising!!
    Originally posted by misterbarlow
    "therefore, we will be assessing the case based on the operator failing to do so."


    Well, the above is fact, appeal based on operator failure.
    Only option for POPLA is to rule in your favour

    Anything less would indicate they have informed the operator
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 9th Nov 18, 3:02 PM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    Their system is so messed up!!
    Been showing as operator evidence received for the last month, even though they recently told me none has been received...
    Now just checked email and had one from POPLA timed at 9.51 this morning..


    Your parking charge Appeal against Parking Eye Ltd.

    Thank you for your patience while we considered the information provided for this Appeal.

    We have now reached the end of our investigation process and the decision can be found on the portal.
    So logged back in to Popla portal now at 3pm and it still says

    "Assessment in progress"???
    Last edited by misterbarlow; 09-11-2018 at 3:16 PM.
    • misterbarlow
    • By misterbarlow 10th Nov 18, 8:38 AM
    • 411 Posts
    • 262 Thanks
    misterbarlow
    its updated overnight...
    Your appeal was successful
    As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action
    In your face Parkingeye!!!
    whoop whoop another MSE forums victory!!!

    All the info I used was found from within the forum in all the other posts, so it shows just do a bit of reading and you can pretty much cover your own back, and the resident experts can dedicate their valuable time helping others with the more complicated appeals!!!



    Decision Successful
    Assessor Name Paul Garrity

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator has failed to provide any evidence to support its reason for issuing the Parking Charge Notice (PCN).

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are: The appellant says the grace period is non-complaint with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say that the entrance signs are inadequately positioned. They say that there is no evidence of land owner authority. They say that there is no evidence of the period of parking. They say that the is no planning permission for pole mounted cameras or signage.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    By issuing the appellant with a Parking Charge Notice, the operator has implied that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park in question. It is the duty of the operator to provide evidence to POPLA of the terms and conditions that the appellant did not comply with. In this case, the operator has not provided any evidence to POPLA.
    As the operator has not provided a response to the appeal, it has not demonstrated that it issued the Parking Charge Notice correctly. I note that the appellant has raised other grounds of appeal, however, as I have allowed the appeal for the above reason, I have not considered these.
    We appear to have won by default from operator apathy, but none the less here is my appeal, in case it or parts of it should help anyone else out??

    As keeper of the above vehicle, I contend I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:


    1. Grace Periods, BPA code of practice non-compliance

    2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned, and signs in the car park are not prominent or clear from all parking spaces, with many also in Welsh, and signs are confusing & ambiguous in nature

    3 No Evidence of Landowner Authority -

    4 No evidence of a “period of parking”, NtK fails to meet POFA requirements

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

    6 No planning permission for pole mounted cameras or advertising consent for signage from Cardiff Council



    1. Grace Period: BPA Code of Practice – non-compliance


    The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the start (of a minimum of 10 minutes) and one at the end (of a minimum of 10 minutes).

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.2) states that:
    If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    BPA’s Code of Practice (13.4) states that:
    You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

    So the BPA Code of Practice (13.2 & 13.4) clearly states that the Grace Periods before and after a parking event should both be a minimum of 10 minutes each, a total of a minimum of 20 minutes per parking event.


    A parking event does not begin and end with entry and exit of the land in a moving vehicle.
    It is therefore argued that the stated duration of the visit in question (which ParkingEye claim was 2 hours 20 minutes) does not include any reasonable grace periods before and after any parking event began, as clearly set out by the BPA.

    When allowances are made for reasonable grace periods before and after parking, as stipulated by the BPA, the length of this visit is reduced to that of or below TWO HOURS, and therefore falls in line with the signed permitted stay of TWO HOURS, therefore rendering this charge invalid!



    2. The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and signs in the car park are not prominent or clear from all parking spaces, with many also in Welsh (I am not a Welsh speaker) and signs are confusing & ambiguous in nature.

    The initial signs upon entry to the car park are poorly positioned at approximately 8-10ft above the ground, surrounded by and in the shadow of trees, bushes, and several other retail signs, and are very easy to miss as you drive in. (appendix A)

    Furthermore, one of the two (different) main entrance signs is purely in Welsh! (appendix B)

    Should anyone even happen to see this sign, how are they even supposed to read and understand it as they drive past, if they do not speak Welsh and it is in a foreign language to them??

    This is a large & busy motorway services car park, and the signs are sporadically and sparsely placed, mainly mounted at least 8-10ft high, signs are not fully visible from many parking spaces, and again also several solely in Welsh.

    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, large areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed at the entrance either - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign (in English), nor parked near one.

    The signs are also confusing & ambiguous in nature.

    The signs seen on a return visit to site by myself state,
    “2hrs free parking, parking tariffs apply after the 2hour free period, (no return within 2hrs)
    Parking tariff for car 2-24hrs £15.
    This signage is actually ambiguous.

    It firstly implies that following the initial 2hrs free parking period, that the subsequent 2-24 hrs are charged at £15, so it follows that in any 24 HOUR PERIOD, a car can only park for TWO HOURS FREE without having to pay the tariff, or incur a charge.

    However, by allowing a return after only 2hrs, a vehicle could actually park for 2hrs, leave, and return 2hrs later and park for 2hrs again, and so on, and so on, pretty much indefinitely, all without ever having to pay the tariff or breach terms and incur a charge!
    Therefore it could also be interpreted that the signs also state that ParkingEye willingly allow a vehicle a total of TWELVE HOURS FREE parking in any 24H PERIOD, without paying any tariff, or contravening any terms and incurring a charge!

    It is clear from this that the so called tariff is in place only to inhibit long stay parking, (especially when you note the tariff is £15, who in their right mind would pay £15 to stay an additional 20mintes, or an additional hour, etc), and that the ambiguous and confusing nature of the signage actually states that ParkingEye allows free parking for TWELVE HOURS over a 24HR PERIOD, and any tariff or subsequent parking charge is merely a disguised penalty against long term parking!

    I therefore interpret that the (confusing & ambiguous) signs here, also state that Parkingeye are happy for any vehicle to stay for free for TWELVE HOURS in any 24HR PERIOD, without paying the tariff or breaching terms and incurring a parking charge, and as the vehicle in question “allegedly” stayed for 2hrs 20mins (despite that not including any grace periods as outlined in section 1) in a 24hr period, this therefore also renders this charge invalid!



    3 No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted 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 this operator 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 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).

    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 Code of Practice) 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).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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.



    4 No Evidence of “period or parking” – NtK fails to meet PoFA 2012 requirements


    Contrary to the provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was ever even parked. The only evidence provided by ParkingEye was that of images of a moving vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the property, and at times claimed by ParkingEye.

    PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”.
    Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:
    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

    The Notice to Keeper from ParkingEye, only states:
    “Welcome Break <location> ,
    Time in car park 2hours 20minutes,
    Arrival time dd/mm/yyyy 09:14:35,
    Departure time dd/mm/yyyy 11:35:02”

    The ParkingEye NtK simply states TIME IN CAR PARK with two small photographs and two lines of text, showing a moving vehicle entered the property at 09.14 and exited the property at 11.35.

    No evidence of any actual parking is provided, and the PERIOD OF PARKING is not specifically stated (as required by PoFA 2012), as it is simply not known by ParkingEye!
    For all I know the driver was stuck in a bad queue in the KFC drive thru and never even parked at all???

    By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

    Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which again states;
    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

    I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was physically parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

    Also, as ‘grace periods are of significant importance in this case, and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the moving vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times cited by ParkingEye, it is vital that ParkingEye produces the evidence of an actual period of parking to comply with POFA.

    Due to the NtK failing POFA 2012, no keeper liability can be invoked!




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

    As stated above in section 4, the NtK from ParkingEye fails to meet POFA 2012 requirements by not stating the period of parking, therefore liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper, using POFA!

    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.

    In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the keeper throughout the appeal (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 and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as 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 ParkingEye to show that 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!.

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge due to failing POFA, and this charge is invalid!



    6. No planning permission for pole mounted cameras or advertising consent for signage from <city> Council

    From my investigations, ParkingEye do not have Planning Permission for the pole-mounted ANPR cameras, nor do they have advertising consent for signage.

    The <city> council website (www.xxxxxxxx.gov.uk/planning) has an interactive online planning portal, allowing members of the public to search and view all historic, existing, pending and future planning application made within the city over the past 25yrs.

    I have carried out a detailed search of this site and can find no record of any planning application whether historic, current or pending, made by ParkingEye for any pole mounted ANPR cameras or advertising signage at this site!

    This shows ParkingEye are/have been seeking to enforce Terms & Conditions displayed on illegally erected signage, using equipment (pole-mounted ANPR cameras) for which no planning application had been made.

    I request ParkingEye provide evidence that the correct Planning Applications were submitted (and approved) in relation to the signs and pole-mounted ANPR cameras.
    Last edited by misterbarlow; 10-11-2018 at 9:26 AM.
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

4,628Posts Today

6,430Users online

Martin's Twitter