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
    • supermario1980
    • By supermario1980 17th Sep 18, 3:15 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    supermario1980
    ParkingEye - Popla comment stage
    • #1
    • 17th Sep 18, 3:15 PM
    ParkingEye - Popla comment stage 17th Sep 18 at 3:15 PM
    Hi all

    Firstly, sorry for starting a new thread, but I'm finding the information overwhelming so thought this best way to go.

    So I got a 85 PCN from Parking Eye for parking at a retail park, the car was parked over an hour too long due to driver simply not being aware that there would be such a restriction. Time was spent at many of the stores on site.

    I appealed as keeper of vehicle, following all advice on the amazing threads on this site.

    First appeal was rejected, so started POPLA process, now have been presented with a 42 page PDF (4 times weirdly) of photos, copies of correspondence already sent and a 1 page signed form from the landowner giving PE authority to rip people off, I mean conduct their business.

    So, my question, what should I put in the comments back to POPLA, I feel like I'm defeated at this point as they seem to have provided everything, the only things I can see are their photos are from 2014 of the site, and some of the signs have different wording to each other.

    I really don't want to give in at this stage as I can't really afford to pay them and I still feel this a grossly unfair racket, but yeah, any advice would be most welcomed.

    Thanks.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Sep 18, 3:33 PM
    • 19,717 Posts
    • 24,986 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 17th Sep 18, 3:33 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Sep 18, 3:33 PM
    read threads with recent POPLA REBUTTAL details in them , to see what others have written

    you are looking for any and all errors and failures in their evidence pack

    so landowner authority that is current and not expired , redacted docs, signage issues , BPA CoP failures , POFA2012 failures etc

    and remember , you only have 2000 characters, so no waffle

    if they have covered every base, including POFA2012, landowner contract etc, then you may well be doomed to fail, like BARRY BEAVIS did against PE 2 years ago (he lost 3 times in 3 different courts)

    so the only way you can win is by exposing a flaw, winning on a technicality, so look for those
    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
    • supermario1980
    • By supermario1980 13th Oct 18, 12:53 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    supermario1980
    • #3
    • 13th Oct 18, 12:53 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Oct 18, 12:53 PM
    So I appealed to POPLA and have lost that, I went through the evidence pack and picked holes in various things, such as the photos of the site they used were 4 years old, different wording on various signs, the land owners authority not being an actual contract but merely a photocopied 1 page signature...

    What should I do now? I'm now unemployed and simply cant pay the fine, and to be honest I still don't feel I should have to.

    Is it safe to now just ignore everything until the Letter Before Court?

    ---

    My case response - (Interestingly, they are now saying it's a 100 fine which is different from the 85 demanded by ParkingEye)

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant states that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and say that the PCN received is not compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). In addition, they say that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site and that the driver did not enter into a contract with the operator. The appellant has questioned the compliance and accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’3 Hour max stay…Customer only car park…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: 100.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time. The car park is monitored by ANPR this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 10:36 and leaving at 14:54 after completing a parking session of four hours and 18 minutes.

    The appellant states that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and say that the PCN received is not compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). In addition, they say that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site and that the driver did not enter into a contract with the operator.

    The appellant has questioned the compliance and accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments, the terms and conditions of the car park still apply. The signage in and around the area clearly states that the maximum stay time is three hours.

    The appellant states that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle and say that the PCN received is not compliant with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

    The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site and that the driver did not enter into a contract with the operator. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent).

    The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. Within the operator’s case file they have provided a copy of a witness statement on behalf of the landowner. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied it meets the requirements as laid out with Section 7 of the British Parking Associations (BPA) Code of Practice and as such, I am satisfied the operator has authorisation from the landowner to operate on the land. When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land.

    The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The appellant has questioned the compliance and accuracy of the ANPR system. The British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by Parking Operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected are accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is 99% accurate. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I must proceed on the basis that the ANPR evidence is accurate. In addition, the appellant has questioned the information and presentation of the signage on site, stating that this contains different formats and wording.

    In section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice it states “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. On looking at the evidence provided, I am satisfied that these terms have been displayed clearly and sufficiently. In addition, the operator has provided a site map showing the location and availability of the signage and I am satisfied that the area provided adequate access to the terms and conditions for motorists.

    It is the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the available signage on site and ensure that their parking complies with the applicable terms and conditions before leaving their vehicle unattended on site. In this instance, the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time and as a result they breached the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
    Last edited by supermario1980; 13-10-2018 at 1:14 PM.
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

4,625Posts Today

9,913Users online

Martin's Twitter