Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

[Van Horne]

Hi, this is just another thread about Parking Eye, but I'd like to briefly run my situation past folks here, if that's OK.


Basically, on the 29th August, having driven from my home in Yorkshire, up to the North East, I was immediately asked by my dad if I would run him through to Wansbeck General Hospital in Ashington, to take some belongings to a relative who had been unexpectedly kept in overnight following an outpatient appointment. As I was only waiting, and didn't expect to be there long, I didn't purchase a ticket. However, I ended up waiting about an hour in the car near the main entrance, as I have done several times before with no problems. I should point out that, until I received the notice from Parking Eye, I had no idea who they were, let alone that they were running the car park. Also, the previous times I'd waited there were apparently before they'd taken over. So anyway, I received the standard parking charge notice which I've seen posted on here, followed later by a reminder. I should also add that I don't have a disabled badge or anything.


The thing I find dubious, is that the photos provided in the notices were taken at the hospital gate, which as far as I can tell, means I'm effectively being charged for simply being on the hospital grounds, and not for any kind of parking infringement, for which they have supplied no evidence.


I would like to appeal and found the Parking Cowboys template appeal letter linked on this site (http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/appeal-letter/). I'm a little confused, however, as it states in that letter that "this letter is not an appeal however, it is a challenge", so I'm wondering a) what the purpose of that statement is, and b) if that letter is actually the appropriate one to use (ie. would PE and POPLA consider me not to have appealed because of that?).


The other thing I'm not sure about is the issue of trespass. The public are free to enter the hospital site for any amount of time, as long as they have reason to, and seeing as I did have a legitimate reason to be there, I wonder if it's relevant or not. The PCN does state that it's private land.


Any help and advice would be hugely appreciated.

[ploddertom]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Do the photos show you:
a - driving in
b - driving out
c - showing where you parked

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

I'm not sure where the parking Cowboys guys are coming from with that section.

My appeal would be short and sweet.

Dear Sirs,

I, as registered Keeper, wish to invoke your appeals process. The car entered the premises but did not park. The charges are penal and not a genuine pre estimate of loss. No signage was seen and no contract was entered in to.

Yours etc.

Await them telling you that you must pay or indeed must name the driver (err don't think so). Once you get your popla code when your appeal is refused then you can do a decent popla appeal such as http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ter&highlight= which should get rid of them.

If you can get a pic of the signage it'll not go to waste either.

M1

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

I have always been somewhat sceptical of the admissibility of ANPR and CCTV photos used by PPCs in their efforts to extract money from motorists. I would be inclined to put pressure on a PPC, who demanded money for the alleged non-payment of some fee or overstaying on the premise of photos that are by no means conclusive evidence that substantiates their claims or demands, to produce conclusive evidence and keep applying increasing pressure with each failure on the part of the PPC to produce such evidence. At least, that way, it would provide evidence of a PPC behaving in an unreasonable manner if the PPC attempted to litigate through the courts.

[enquirer]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

However, I ended up waiting about an hour in the car near the main entrance

An hour.

Where were you parked? Most hospitals have separate parking areas and drop-off points. The one is controlled, the other not. Analyse the photograph and determine what information it actually conveys. Does it, for instance, merely confirm that you entered onto the property?

The other thing I'm not sure about is the issue of trespass. The public are free to enter the hospital site for any amount of time ...

There is an implied right of access, but there must be a legitimate reason for being there, and that itself is subject to such terms and conditions as may be applied.

[ploddertom]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

I have always been somewhat sceptical of the admissibility of ANPR and CCTV photos used by PPCs in their efforts to extract money from motorists. I would be inclined to put pressure on a PPC, who demanded money for the alleged non-payment of some fee or overstaying on the premise of photos that are by no means conclusive evidence that substantiates their claims or demands, to produce conclusive evidence and keep applying increasing pressure with each failure on the part of the PPC to produce such evidence. At least, that way, it would provide evidence of a PPC behaving in an unreasonable manner if the PPC attempted to litigate through the courts.

Using these systems means they no longer have to have a "man on the ground". In a case like this where is the actual proof the car was parked.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Using these systems means they no longer have to have a "man on the ground". In a case like this where is the actual proof the car was parked.

Who cares ? It's not going to matter.

M1

[Van Horne]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

OK, thanks for the replies, guys.

Do the photos show you:
a - driving in
b - driving out
c - showing where you parked

It shows a & b only.

My appeal would be short and sweet

Await them telling you that you must pay or indeed must name the driver (err don't think so). Once you get your popla code when your appeal is refused then you can do a decent popla appeal such as http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ter&highlight= which should get rid of them.

If you can get a pic of the signage it'll not go to waste either.

Ah cool. I might need a bit more advice when it comes to tailoring the POPLA letter, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I have always been somewhat sceptical of the admissibility of ANPR and CCTV photos used by PPCs in their efforts to extract money from motorists. I would be inclined to put pressure on a PPC, who demanded money for the alleged non-payment of some fee or overstaying on the premise of photos that are by no means conclusive evidence that substantiates their claims or demands, to produce conclusive evidence and keep applying increasing pressure with each failure on the part of the PPC to produce such evidence. At least, that way, it would provide evidence of a PPC behaving in an unreasonable manner if the PPC attempted to litigate through the courts.

Sounds like a good idea.

Where were you parked? Most hospitals have separate parking areas and drop-off points. The one is controlled, the other not. Analyse the photograph and determine what information it actually conveys. Does it, for instance, merely confirm that you entered onto the property?

Yes, it only shows my car entering and exiting the hospital grounds through the main gate. The letter I received is the same format as this one, with exactly the same information: http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...ps7a267062.jpg

I visited the hospital more than once during my trip up north, and can't quite remember my exact movements on that particular occasion. I did move into a bay opposite the drop off point, not in the main car park, when it became apparent that I was going to be waiting a bit longer than I thought. It's possible I may have been in the bay longer than the 20 mins I now know you're allowed, but unless they can provide evidence that I definitely was, then I'm not going to just take their word for it and say "ah heck, you're probably right...here's £70."

There is an implied right of access, but there must be a legitimate reason for being there, and that itself is subject to such terms and conditions as may be applied.

Well, like I say, I consider myself to have had a perfectly legitimate reason for being there.

[labman]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Reading round all the forums I know of related to parking issues, which I try to do every one or two days, the initial appea is pretty much irrelevant now, so a short letter saying you appeal and want a POPLA code is basically all you need, padded out with a couple of points they'll reject anyway.

The POPLA appeal is critical, and it is important you get this right. I know the one posted here has been collated from a range of sources from around the internet and from the author's impressive personal knowledge on the subject. It hopefully pulls together the best from everywhere.

Beyond that, all other information is, IMO, pretty much irrelevant now. Issues like the ANPR raised by Ploddertom will be useful for the POPLA appeal, but not at the early stage. :beagle:

[Van Horne]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Reading round all the forums I know of related to parking issues, which I try to do every one or two days, the initial appea is pretty much irrelevant now, so a short letter saying you appeal and want a POPLA code is basically all you need, padded out with a couple of points they'll reject anyway.

The POPLA appeal is critical, and it is important you get this right. I know the one posted here has been collated from a range of sources from around the internet and from the author's impressive personal knowledge on the subject. It hopefully pulls together the best from everywhere.

Beyond that, all other information is, IMO, pretty much irrelevant now. Issues like the ANPR raised by Ploddertom will be useful for the POPLA appeal, but not at the early stage. :beagle:

Yeah, that's the impression I've been getting. I'm just giving a basic list of my objections, borrowing some of the wording from the Parking Cowboys letter, plus a list of things relating to my objections that I want off them should they reject it (photographs of my car parked and signage, and a breakdown of their losses) as suggested by bluebottle. They say in the PCN that they'll send details about POPLA, so I won't bother with that.

[Van Horne]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

OK, just a quick update: I have received what appears to be an acknowledgement letter to my appeal. It's basically a seven page letter which focuses mainly on the issue of "genuine pre-estimate of loss." They begin by arguing that judges have recently begun to base their judgements on the "commercial justification argument," and not the argument that the charge should be based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss. They then go on to cite many court cases in which the ruling has gone in favour of the PPC, based on this. They also provide a general breakdown of losses such as erection and maintenance of signs, installation of cameras, office costs and other general expenditures.


They then provide what they claim to be a full list of Parking Eye court cases in which the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss has been raised, since POPLA has been in place. All the cases are awarded in favour of Parking Eye, and in many of those cases it is pointed out that the defences have been based on information from internet forums (they seem particularly keen to mention that).


After that, they "note that a number of [my] queries are of a generic nature" before providing a short list of FAQs which only address one of them. That being that as long as there are plenty of clear signs, that it will be considered that the driver has entered into a contract. They cite section 7.1 here to support this, along with a few court cases.


In all, it seems to be a generic, standard issue scare letter, aimed at folks who dare to venture online for advice. I guess my question would be: is this just typical PPC "blah-blah," or is there anything new here that should be cause for concern?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Read it read it and read it again. Is there a 10 digit number hidden anywhere ? Does it say anything will follow ? Does it acknowledge that you appealed ?

Also did you use my idea above or something a little more elaborate ?

M1

[labman]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Within the past week I have read of judgments won on the main basis of genuine pre-estimate of loss, so unless things have changed very recently, I suspect it is generic. As you probably know, the PPC's are shifting tactics all the time though, so one can never be complacent -eg- ignore used to work, it doesn't now.

I suspect most (possibly all) the judgments cited were default judgments where the person didn't turn up to defend their case. Of course they will win these, and with the sheer number of claims being submitted, the list will be impressively large by now. That should not come as a surprise, but is clearly designed to scare, as these default judgments are 'genuine wins' which could quite probably have been avoided.

[Van Horne]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Read it read it and read it again. Is there a 10 digit number hidden anywhere ? Does it say anything will follow ? Does it acknowledge that you appealed ?

No, there is no POPLA code, if that's what you mean, and it doesn't provide any information on what I should do, or what they will do next. In fact, I'm only assuming it's just an acknowledgement because I had a closer look at the appeals process in the BPA code of practice, otherwise I may have continued to be under the impression it actually was a rejection letter, even though it doesn't specifically say it is. The only "helpful" information was contact details to pay the charge. It also just refers to my appeal as a "correspondence in relation to the parking charge."

Also did you use my idea above or something a little more elaborate ?

Pretty much your idea, but I padded it out a bit with wording from the Parking Cowboys letter.


The points I made were that the photos they provided only showed my car at the hospital gates but not the actual parking infringment, and that basically I believe that if they do have any further evidence of wrongdoing, that it was unfair of them not to send it in the first instance, as it may have influenced my course of action. They ignored both of these.


I also made points about no contract being entered into, and genuine pre-estimate of loss, both of which were addressed in the letter.


I decided against asking for additional evidence, as I wanted to see what information they would volunteer first. I won't rule out making such requests later, though.

Within the past week I have read of judgments won on the main basis of genuine pre-estimate of loss, so unless things have changed very recently, I suspect it is generic. As you probably know, the PPC's are shifting tactics all the time though, so one can never be complacent -eg- ignore used to work, it doesn't now.


I suspect most (possibly all) the judgments cited were default judgments where the person didn't turn up to defend their case. Of course they will win these, and with the sheer number of claims being submitted, the list will be impressively large by now. That should not come as a surprise, but is clearly designed to scare, as these default judgments are 'genuine wins' which could quite probably have been avoided.

The main list of cases they provide date between the 19th July 2013 and the 28th August 2013, and there are eleven in total. They mention defendants' arguements and defences, but don't say whether these were made in court or were simply the original appeal claims. There is one I can see that mentions a defendant being questioned, and another case where they actually quote a post that a defendant supposedly made on an online forum (a nice subtle way of saying "we're watching you!"). Some of the cases Parking Eye cite to support their claims in the main body of the letter date back as far as 2007, though.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye PCN - Wansbeck General Hospital

Some ppcs have been known to hide the popla code hence the question.

Just email them and ask if they are still considering your appeal or if they forgot to provide the popla code. Reiterate that you didn't park.

M1