• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Parking Eye

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Parking Eye

    Hi, I am new here and I am looking for some help. I parked in a car park which was monitored by Parking Eye. The parking ticket machine was refusing money that day I outstayed my 45 mins by 15 mins and consequently Parking Eye sent me an invitation to pay. I appealed against the decision, the decision was denied. I appealed to POPLA and my appeal was meant to of been heard on 22 April 2015. Just found an email from POPLA...........
    The operator in your case has applied for an adjournment, pending a decision of the Court of Appeal which they say has relevance to your own appeal. The case is ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (B2/2014/2010).
    The Lead Adjudicator has already granted a similar application in a small number of cases. Your appeal was not due for determination when the application was made and has not yet been considered in any way. Your case will be adjourned for 28 days.
    If either party want a further adjournment after 28 days then the matter will be considered further. The operator should still submit evidence in the usual way at this stage.
    It is likely that there will be widespread publicity when the Court of Appeal decision is known. However, in any event, should either party wish to make further representations following that decision, they will be able to do so and the other party will have the opportunity to comment on them.
    Your appeal will now be considered on or soon after 20 May 2015 .
    Has anyone else encountered this? I really need advise what to do next?
    Thanks in advance :doggieyes:
    .
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Parking Eye

    Hi Clarabelle, welcome to LB!!
    [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] is probably the best person to advise you on this, I'm sure he will be along later :tinysmile_twink_t2:

    K xx
    Debt is like any other trap, easy enough to get into, but hard enough to get out of.

    It doesn't matter where your journey begins, so long as you begin it...

    recte agens confido

    ~~~~~

    Any advice I provide is given without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    I can be emailed if you need my help loading pictures/documents to your thread. My email address is Kati@legalbeagles.info
    But please include a link to your thread so I know who you are.

    Specialist advice can be sought via our sister site JustBeagle

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Parking Eye

      Can you post up your popla appeal please ?

      M1

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Parking Eye

        Appeal reasons:
        POPLA Code: XXXXXXXXXXX
        vehicle Reg: FN** L**
        PPC: parking eye ANPR PCN
        Ref: Alleged XXXXXX/XXXXXX
        Contravention Date & Time: 05/02/2015 at 13.29

        Date of PCN: On 11/02/15 I was sent an invoice from Parking Eye ANPR as keeper of the above vehicle requiring payment of a charge of £85 for an alleged parking contravention.
        I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: -
        • The payment machine was out of order and was unable to pay.
        • No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
        • No authority to levy charges
        • Lack of contract
        • Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
        • Cameras


        No Creditor identified on the Notice to Appellant
        Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Athena ANPR, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Athena ANPR or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.
        I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

        No authority to levy charges
        A parking management company will need to have the proper legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and enforce for breach of contract. The operator must produce evidence to demonstrate that it is the landowner, or a contract or other evidence that it has the authority of the landowner to issue charge notices at this location. The appellant believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles Athena ANPR to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts and therefore has no authority to issue charge notices. When requested on appeal Athena ANPR failed to provide a copy of the contract. The appellant puts the operator to strict proof to POPLA that they have the necessary legal authorisation at this location and demands that the operator produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and the operator.
        I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

        No contract
        There was no contract between the driver and Athena ANPR. The driver did not see any contractual information on any signs when entering the car park and therefore at that time had no idea that any contract or restrictions applied. As a consequence the requirements for forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, and certainty of terms were not satisfied. And even if there was a contract, which has yet to be proven, then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

        Charge not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
        The demand for £90 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, has no relationship to the loss that would have been suffered by the Landowner, and is therefore an unenforceable penalty. Furthermore, it exceeds the BPA’s own Code of Practice. The BPA Code of Practice states: 19.5 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. 19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.

        Cameras
        Athena ANPR are obliged to make sure their equipment is in working order and comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21. The appellant required them to present evidence on whether the cameras were checked and maintained recently in relation to the date of the alleged incident, to ensure the accuracy of any Athena ANPR images. They have failed to do so, although this is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. I also challenge The Operator to show that DPA registration (data collecting CCTV) is also compliant with legal and BPA requirements and demand that they demonstrate adherence. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed

        The appellant requires Athena ANPR to provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated. I am aware from Court rulings and previous POPLA adjudications that the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss. POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. For example, were no breach to have occurred, then the cost of parking enforcement, such as erecting signage, would still have been the same. The estimate must be based upon loss flowing from a breach of the parking terms, and in this instance there was no such loss. I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

        - - - Updated - - -

        There you go Mystery1
        Last edited by Kati; 24th April 2015, 15:18:PM. Reason: spacing :) x

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Parking Eye

          I think we are going to have to be more thorough until we work out some new angles. Do you have the original PCN and pictures of the signs ?

          M1

          Comment

          View our Terms and Conditions

          LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

          If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


          If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
          Working...
          X