Parking Eye

[clarabelle]

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:
.

[Kati]

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

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye

Can you post up your popla appeal please ?

M1

[clarabelle]

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

[mystery1]

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