Maxinep - Parking eye - WON!

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

im trying to upload some photos but cant can anyone help pls

Have messaged you my email and i'll post them up here for you.

M1

[maxinep]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

I have seen this as well from another person:@maxinep At southampton the mandatory entrance signs required by by Appendix B of the BPA Ltd code of practice do not conform. The lettering is far too small, the big 'p' is missing, the wording is incorrect, the sign is positioned such the a driver with legal eyesight cannot read it without moving their eyes more than 10% from the road, group '1' and '2' fonts are the same size and the colouring chosen, back on yellow is extremely close to the colouring used as an example of 'difficult to read' (blue on yellow). That should be enough for POPLA to throw out due to signage irregularities, but also add the usual stuff such as contract with landowner not compliant with BPA Ltd code of practice 7.1 and 7.2 and charge not true pre-estimate of loss as per BPA Ltd CoP 19.5. True pre estimate of loss at Southampton is £5.20 (£2.20 parking, £2.50 DVLA, 60p postage)

So shall I write this too M1???

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye






M1

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

I have seen this as well from another person:@maxinep At southampton the mandatory entrance signs required by by Appendix B of the BPA Ltd code of practice do not conform. The lettering is far too small, the big 'p' is missing, the wording is incorrect, the sign is positioned such the a driver with legal eyesight cannot read it without moving their eyes more than 10% from the road, group '1' and '2' fonts are the same size and the colouring chosen, back on yellow is extremely close to the colouring used as an example of 'difficult to read' (blue on yellow). That should be enough for POPLA to throw out due to signage irregularities, but also add the usual stuff such as contract with landowner not compliant with BPA Ltd code of practice 7.1 and 7.2 and charge not true pre-estimate of loss as per BPA Ltd CoP 19.5. True pre estimate of loss at Southampton is £5.20 (£2.20 parking, £2.50 DVLA, 60p postage)

So shall I write this too M1???

Indeed it's a great help.

I'll look over these letters and compose an appeal asap before i go back to work thursday. The info poster by the prankster will be included. Prankster is a legend by the way, don't let his name fool you

Any help is also welcome.

M1

[maxinep]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Thanks I only have til thurs to appeal (28 days from 14th june)

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Name
Address
Verification Code: xxxxxxxxxxx


02/06/2013
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Parking Appeal


Sir/Madam,


I appeal against the decision of Parking Eye Ltd because they have failed to follow the BPA code of practice and attempted to impose a penalty charge for either breach of contract or trespass.


7.1 of the BPA code of practice makes it a requirement that Parking Eye either own the land or have the written authorisation of the land owner to enable them to operate on the land. I, as registered keeper, put parking eye to strict proof that a valid contract exists that eneables them to act in this manner on behalf of the landowner. It is not an onerus task to produce the contract as the 8.1 of the code means it has to be available at all times.


The mandatory entrance signs required by by Appendix B of the code of practice do not conform. The lettering is far too small, the big 'p' is missing, the wording is incorrect, the sign is positioned such the a driver with legal eyesight cannot read it without moving their eyes more than 10% from the road, group '1' and '2' fonts are the same size and the colouring chosen, back on yellow is extremely close to the colouring used as an example of 'difficult to read' (blue on yellow).


The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Respondent should “allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” The signage in the car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this is unreasonable, especially as Parking Eye rely on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence that the respondent can produce to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit they are relying upon and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.




19.5 of the code of practice states that “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay
is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge
must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that
you suffer” As the cost of using the car park would have been only £2 or so and it was not full at the time it is difficult to see how losses can be £100. The costs of doing business, which would be incurred, are not losses due to a parking event as per VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICESLIMITED -v- MR R IBBOTSON as well as being common sense. I, as registered keeper, put Parking Eye to strict proof of losses.


If Parking Eye proceed as a contractual term, in light of the above, then I, as registered keeper, submit therefore, these 'charges' for an alleged 'breach' are in fact unlawful attempts at penalties, as was found in the case of Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011) and in the case with the same Operator, Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011). Parking Eye will not be able to refute this fact - however many pages of evidence they may send to POPLA - and so this punitive charge is therefore unenforceable in law. Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co 1915 “The question of whether a predetermined sum is or is not a penalty is a question of construction: in constructing the clause a court will consider all the facts surrounding the negotiations at the time the contract was entered into, not at the time of the breach”




I further contend that Parking Eye have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence.




I would contend that this appeal should be allowed for these reasons.






M1

[labman]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

I'm surprised you have not been pointed to the draft letter of appeal on this site to be found here:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...rking-Offences

In addition to anything posted above (and I haven't read the entire thread), this may be extremely useful. Apologies for not picking up on this sooner, but I have been away from the site for a little while and am only able to pop in now and then at present.

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

I'm surprised you have not been pointed to the draft letter of appeal on this site to be found here:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...rking-Offences

In addition to anything posted above (and I haven't read the entire thread), this may be extremely useful. Apologies for not picking up on this sooner, but I have been away from the site for a little while and am only able to pop in now and then at present.

It's not at the appeal stage. It's at the popla stage now.

M1

[maxinep]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Thanks M1

I have submitted the POPLA appeal online so now will wait response

[maxinep]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Hi
I had an email from POPLA to say my appeal now sent to parking eye, but if parking eye have said no already what difference does it make and also they say will tell me by September?????

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Different rules.

They send it to parking eye so they can submit evidence. This evidence will be sent to you before the appeal is looked at by an adjudicator so you can add to your appeal if required.

September is optimistic i'd say. Maybe by xmas. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...still-its.html

M1

[maxinep]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

hi

I have had all the evidence sent to me by parking eye theres reams of it!!

Now what?

Thanks

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Is there a contract between the landowner and parking eye ? (just a witness statement i imagine)

Is there anything to prove the loss is caused by your parking ?

Post up anything interesting or that you're not sure of.

M1

[maxinep]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

parking eye can confirm that the site is private owned and is not council owned

we have written authority to operate and issue parking charge notice at the site from landowner

it must be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing thye existence of a principal or who through disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal renders himself personally liable on the contract is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. it follows that that a lawful contract between parking eye and the motorist will be enforceable by parking eye as a party to that contract.

calulated the outstanding parking charge amount as a genuine pre estimate of loss as we incur significant costs in managing the car park to ensure motorists comply with stated terms and conditions costs include

erection and maintenance of the site signage
installation monitoring and maintenance of automatic number plate systems
employment of office staff
mrmbership fees
general costs eg postage

this sum and the calculatiopns which have been made in setting it has been approved and agreed by the landowner this sum was also clearly laid out on the signage at this site and by the remaining on site
we contend the motorist has accepted all the prevailling terms and conditions of that contract including the breach of the contract

they have sent all the letters they sent and photos of all the signs around the site they say they are 64,

[mystery1]

Re: Maxinep - Parking eye

Sounds like a winner to me

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...0&postcount=22

M1