Parking Eye

[softsword]

Re: Parking Eye

UPDATE:

Hi M1,
looks like I have received a letter today saying my appeal was unsuccessful and there is a POPLA reference number provided.
As you said I need to appeal in POPLA, please give me instructions on what I should write, what all information I should provide etc.,

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter

M1

[softsword]

Re: Parking Eye

Thanks M1.

However, can I just use the same content for me?
1. There are something like below which is very specific and may not be relevant to me. Fox ex, the details like 'the car is free and nearly empty' etc.,

"There was no parking charge levied, the car park is “free”. On the date of the claimed loss it was nearly empty and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can Parking Eye lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administration staff) in any 'loss' claimed. See VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICESLIMITED -v- MR R IBBOTSON and A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K, Oxford County Court. This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words, were no breach to have occurred, the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by PoPLA itself in adjucation."

Should I write anything different instead?

2. In the content, I do not see any details about my car or parking charge notice reference number or POPLA reference number etc., Are you sure this content is enough or should I add anything more to this?

3. I should just go to the POPLA site and give reference number and paste the content? Because I do not have any receipts or anything with me.

Sorry if my questions are very basic, it would be of great help if you could give me the details.

Thanks.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

Was it a paid car park then ?

I thought it was a free car park that you overstayed ?

M1

[softsword]

Re: Parking Eye

The parking lot was in Guardino services, in bristol. I never knew if it was a paid parking lot until I received my first parking notice.

The reminder to my first notice appeared like the first image in ur post from this link:
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...289#post355289

and the appeal unsuccessful letter in which I got the popla code has the line like "We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful due to the fat that the car park is a 'Pay & Display / Paid Parking' car park only."

- this is also similar to what is given in the second image of ur post from the same link.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

The parking lot was in Guardino services, in bristol. I never knew if it was a paid parking lot until I received my first parking notice.

The reminder to my first notice appeared like the first image in ur post from this link:
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...289#post355289

and the appeal unsuccessful letter in which I got the popla code has the line like "We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful due to the fat that the car park is a 'Pay & Display / Paid Parking' car park only."

- this is also similar to what is given in the second image of ur post from the same link.

Dear 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.


The operator does not appear to own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, The operator has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.


I require the operator to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner.


Contracts are complicated things, so a witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original, showing the points above, is the only acceptable item as evidence that a contract exists and authorises the Operator the right, under contract, to write numerous letters to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants and to pursue them through to Court.


I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.


It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."


The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."


In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.


The Operator also make reference in their appeal refusal of (date) to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.


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 enables them to act in this manner on behalf of the landowner. It is not an onerus task to produce the contract as secttion 8.1 of the code means it has to be available at all times.




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, “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,”


There was only a minimal parking charge levied, the car park is not £100 to park as long as you like or any other specified duration. On the date of the claimed loss it was nearly empty and there was no physical damage caused. There can only have been minimal loss arising from this incident. Neither can Parking Eye lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administration staff) in any 'loss' claimed. See VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICESLIMITED -v- MR R IBBOTSON and A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K, Oxford County Court. This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words, were no breach to have occurred, the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by PoPLA itself in adjucation.


I contend there can only be a loss of the applicable tariff ; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.


The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 40% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE


Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .


The operator is either charging for losses or it is a penalty/fine.


The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.


The signage on site states that parking is limited to 2 hours with no return within 1 hour. There is no option to stay for longer by paying. A clear penalty.




NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER


There is no contract between PCC and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.


UNFAIR TERMS


The charge that was levied is an unfair term, and therefore not binding, pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."


UNREASONABLE


The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”


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, as registered keeper, contend that these cameras and their operation do not meet the standards laid down in the BPA code of practice.


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





That's what i'd put with alteration if the tariff is known.

M1

[softsword]

Re: Parking Eye

I think I only need to edit the part below because it does not apply in case as they mention in their letter that it is free parking only for 2 hours after which I need to pay:

The signage on site states that parking is limited to 2 hours with no return within 1 hour. There is no option to stay for longer by paying. A clear penalty.

I do not know the tariff anyway, maybe I can go back look my first notice letter and check if any charge is mentioned.

[softsword]

Re: Parking Eye

I verified and I do not see that they have written any detail about the parking charge after 2 hours.

[grant007]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi Again M1 :tinysmile_twink_t2:
I did try to PM you but without sucess, Maybe you are just getting too many now? I also couldnt find my original new thread this link here, maybe it has been deleted now. >>http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ewthread&f=313

Here is a copy of the Pm I sent earlier today >>
Hi again M1 :tinysmile_twink_t2:

I recieved a letter from P.E saying they wanted to go to court and their defence seems to be if I read it correctly is just a load of blrb about Judge Malooney and the test case, I am not sure but I think they are trying to say that the Signage defence Judge Malloney rules that in favour of P.E, but you would know better than I about the test case M1, I can scan and forward what they sent us, they also sent a court date today for 7th July, it has the standard settlement/ mediation blurb that I guess they always send, no mention of a settlement cost from what I can see, to be honest I am struggling to get the daughter to take the day off from work to go to court anyway, where shall I go from here do you think M1, do you have any advice, shall I forward it to you, can you help me M1? whats your thoughts please Mr Man?:tinysmile_twink_t2:
With my kind regards as always sport :tinysmile_twink_t2:
Grant:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[60quid?]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi, I started a tread yesterday but this seems to be a 'catch all' so sorry if I messed up :| Hopefully soneone can help me soon as I don't want the fee to escalate

I'm having a bit of a mare - wrote the car off last week then yesterday got this notice through! lol (crying inside!!).

So, essentially here's the facts (trying to keep long story short):

We were off to IoW for the Festival, just the Friday evening. Parked at Red Funnel 'end of pier' car park (around 5:30pm) & bought ferry ticket. Asked about when it was coming back and was told 1:15 but car ferry running 'through the night'. Told can't buy car parking ticket from them so they gave me some change - ferry was leaving in 5 mins so I rushed to pay for ticket. Machine charges £9 for 12 hours and £12 for 24 hours, went to pay for 24hrs but machine only takes coins so thought we'd probably be back in time anyway (by 5:30 am) so would pay for 12hrs as I didn't have time to get more change.

On the way back there was lots of confusion about when the last ferry actually was. But after 'checking' 'someone official' at the festival confirmed the last car ferry was 2:30. When we got to the terminal we were advised that wasn't true - the last one had been 1:30 but their had been an extra foot ferry running at 2:15 (if we had known this we could have caught it and all would be fine!).

So we had to kip on the floor - at 5 we woke and I asked the staff in the terminal what the car park was and they gave me a tel no. and car park ref number - I tried calling but the car park number was not valid (it turns out it wasn't even the right company!). So I gave up and ended up 'running the risk' and when we got back to the car I saw no ticket so assumed I was lucky.

The notice arrived yesterday confirming I was there for 13hrs 20mins (IIRC) and need to pay £60 withing 2 weeks or it'll be £100...I have yet to do anything about it.

So, where do I stand!? I'm gutted because I did try to pay but wasn't able to. I'm angry the machine doesn't take notes (how many people carry 9 or 12 £1 coins!? I'm also angry Red Funnel were so inpet and gave me poor information (and didn't even know the car park details!!). I paid for 12 hrs so obviously feel I shouldn't have even bothered paying the £9 to begin with!!

Thanks in advance for any help

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

I verified and I do not see that they have written any detail about the parking charge after 2 hours.

It won't matter too much as the genuine pre estimate of loss is the killer. It's just better to be as accurate as you can to avoid looking silly.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi Again M1 :tinysmile_twink_t2:
I did try to PM you but without sucess, Maybe you are just getting too many now? I also couldnt find my original new thread this link here, maybe it has been deleted now. >>http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ewthread&f=313

Here is a copy of the Pm I sent earlier today >>
Hi again M1 :tinysmile_twink_t2:

I recieved a letter from P.E saying they wanted to go to court and their defence seems to be if I read it correctly is just a load of blrb about Judge Malooney and the test case, I am not sure but I think they are trying to say that the Signage defence Judge Malloney rules that in favour of P.E, but you would know better than I about the test case M1, I can scan and forward what they sent us, they also sent a court date today for 7th July, it has the standard settlement/ mediation blurb that I guess they always send, no mention of a settlement cost from what I can see, to be honest I am struggling to get the daughter to take the day off from work to go to court anyway, where shall I go from here do you think M1, do you have any advice, shall I forward it to you, can you help me M1? whats your thoughts please Mr Man?:tinysmile_twink_t2:
With my kind regards as always sport :tinysmile_twink_t2:
Grant:tinysmile_twink_t2:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ate&highlight=



M1

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

Hi, I started a tread yesterday but this seems to be a 'catch all' so sorry if I messed up :| Hopefully soneone can help me soon as I don't want the fee to escalate

I'm having a bit of a mare - wrote the car off last week then yesterday got this notice through! lol (crying inside!!).

So, essentially here's the facts (trying to keep long story short):

We were off to IoW for the Festival, just the Friday evening. Parked at Red Funnel 'end of pier' car park (around 5:30pm) & bought ferry ticket. Asked about when it was coming back and was told 1:15 but car ferry running 'through the night'. Told can't buy car parking ticket from them so they gave me some change - ferry was leaving in 5 mins so I rushed to pay for ticket. Machine charges £9 for 12 hours and £12 for 24 hours, went to pay for 24hrs but machine only takes coins so thought we'd probably be back in time anyway (by 5:30 am) so would pay for 12hrs as I didn't have time to get more change.

On the way back there was lots of confusion about when the last ferry actually was. But after 'checking' 'someone official' at the festival confirmed the last car ferry was 2:30. When we got to the terminal we were advised that wasn't true - the last one had been 1:30 but their had been an extra foot ferry running at 2:15 (if we had known this we could have caught it and all would be fine!).

So we had to kip on the floor - at 5 we woke and I asked the staff in the terminal what the car park was and they gave me a tel no. and car park ref number - I tried calling but the car park number was not valid (it turns out it wasn't even the right company!). So I gave up and ended up 'running the risk' and when we got back to the car I saw no ticket so assumed I was lucky.

The notice arrived yesterday confirming I was there for 13hrs 20mins (IIRC) and need to pay £60 withing 2 weeks or it'll be £100...I have yet to do anything about it.

So, where do I stand!? I'm gutted because I did try to pay but wasn't able to. I'm angry the machine doesn't take notes (how many people carry 9 or 12 £1 coins!? I'm also angry Red Funnel were so inpet and gave me poor information (and didn't even know the car park details!!). I paid for 12 hrs so obviously feel I shouldn't have even bothered paying the £9 to begin with!!

Thanks in advance for any help

Sorry i missed you.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...e!!&highlight=

M1

[softsword]

Re: Parking Eye

I think I only need to edit the part below because it does not apply in case as they mention in their letter that it is free parking only for 2 hours after which I need to pay:


The signage on site states that parking is limited to 2 hours with no return within 1 hour. There is no option to stay for longer by paying. A clear penalty.


I do not know the tariff anyway, maybe I can go back look my first notice letter and check if any charge is mentioned.

I verified and I do not see that they have written any detail about the parking charge after 2 hours.

It won't matter too much as the genuine pre estimate of loss is the killer. It's just better to be as accurate as you can to avoid looking silly.


M1

In that case I better not mention about the signage at all. I shall remove that line from the appeal content.


Also, parking eye ppl when they sent me the letter with POPLA code, they sent me a POPLA appeal form also.
I assume I need not use that and I can just fill in the code and copy the content you gave me in the space given for reasons. Please confirm if I am doing the right thing because I do not want to do any silly mistakes inspite of getting abundant help and advise from here.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

In that case I better not mention about the signage at all. I shall remove that line from the appeal content.


Also, parking eye ppl when they sent me the letter with POPLA code, they sent me a POPLA appeal form also.
I assume I need not use that and I can just fill in the code and copy the content you gave me in the space given for reasons. Please confirm if I am doing the right thing because I do not want to do any silly mistakes inspite of getting abundant help and advise from here.

Yes, that's what i'd do. I would however follow up with an email to popla along the lines of,

Dear sirs,


I would just like to check that you received all my appeal as i have heard that some lengthy appeals are not fully submitted using the web page you offer due to it's limitations.

Copy and paste appeal here.

Yours etc

M1