4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

[mystery1]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

See if it comes via post, if not 14/15th write "none received".

M1

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

See if it comes via post, if not 14/15th write "none received".

M1

Hi m1,

They sent a very long letter as you thought they may, and it addresses every point that I made.

However, I don't think they seem to understand that they had NO lighting on their signs and I genuinely did not see them. How on earth would I have been able to read those terms and conditions at that height in the dark with such small lighting even if I had?
The entrance sign is also ridiculous as I am looking at the road as I drive into a car park. Not around the place.

(there are more Image that will be in next post)

Should I be worried?

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

See if it comes via post, if not 14/15th write "none received".

M1

2/3 uploads

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

See if it comes via post, if not 14/15th write "none received".

M1

3/3 attachments

[mystery1]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

The operator at number 12 references a section regarding "the creditor" from their PCN which is not in fact present, even in their copy sent as evidence.

The operator makes no claim that the signs were well lit and easily seen in the dark. They were not.

The witness statement is 2 years old and references a contract from 2010. Thus it contains no real or practical information for 2015.

M1

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

The operator at number 12 references a section regarding "the creditor" from their PCN which is not in fact present, even in their copy sent as evidence.

The operator makes no claim that the signs were well lit and easily seen in the dark. They were not.

The witness statement is 2 years old and references a contract from 2010. Thus it contains no real or practical information for 2015.

M1

Hi M1,

Thanks for all your help, today POPLA emailed me with:

The Supreme Court has now issued its decision in relation to Beavis v ParkingEye.
As previously advised, POPLA placed this appeal on hold until we had considered our position in relation to this.
We have now considered our position and will allow both sides to provide any further comments or evidence regarding the Supreme Court’s decision for our consideration.
We asked parking operators for their responses first, so we were able to share them with appellants. The parking operator provided no further evidence for your appeal.
Please provide your comments or additional within seven days as responses after this point will not be considered.
If the portal does not allow you to submit your comments then we will accept these via email to:
info@popla.co.uk.
Kind Regards,
POPLA team

I'm not really sure what to say to this? The appeal we sent is in this thread and not sure how to respond or if I need to add anything?

[mystery1]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Login to popla and see what evidence is listed then post it here.

M1

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Login to popla and see what evidence is listed then post it here.

M1

Hi M1,

The original email also says they didn't send anything, and I can't see anything on the POPLA site when I log in either

[mystery1]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Wait until day 6 then, if possible, write in the box " the operator has supplied no evidence at all". If not possible then email the same.

M1

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Wait until day 6 then, if possible, write in the box " the operator has supplied no evidence at all". If not possible then email the same.

M1

Thanks a lot M1, do I not need to defend anything I said in the appeal regarding Beavis and Parking Eye incase POPLA decided their stance is not in my favour?

[mystery1]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Thanks a lot M1, do I not need to defend anything I said in the appeal regarding Beavis and Parking Eye incase POPLA decided their stance is not in my favour?

Not a lot to be said on Beavis.

We do need to mention that the letter of authority/contract doesn't adhere to section 7 of the code of practice if they have or do produce anything.

See the successful decisions at http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ht=#post623245. The actual poster in the thread lost but i wasn't helping and i don't think the appeal company they used responded when faced with evidence so they lost, unlike everyone else !

M1

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Not a lot to be said on Beavis.

We do need to mention that the letter of authority/contract doesn't adhere to section 7 of the code of practice if they have or do produce anything.

See the successful decisions at http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ht=#post623245. The actual poster in the thread lost but i wasn't helping and i don't think the appeal company they used responded when faced with evidence so they lost, unlike everyone else !

M1

Hi m1,

2 days until the 7 days is up and the operator have still left no evidence, I'll of course give it another day, but even if they do not submit further evidence, shall I still
comment? I read somewhere (may have been this thread) that the parking company need to respond to all my appeal points successfully to win, whereas my appeal only needs to to prove right with one point to win? Therefore if POPLA side with the Beavis decision surely keeper liability still puts Met at a loss here?

Best

[mystery1]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Contact popla now and inform them that no evidence has been provided.

info@popla.co.uk

M1

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Contact popla now and inform them that no evidence has been provided.

info@popla.co.uk

M1

Hi m1, I did this yesterday and they said my comments have been added to my file

[thequeenisclarice]

Re: 4 parking fines IN ONE WEEK! Parking eye, Smart Parking and MET

Hi m1, I did this yesterday and they said my comments have been added to my file

Hi m1

I had a decision today that was unsuccessful:

The operator monitors the site using ANPR. The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 21:52 and exiting at 23:41. The appellant has stated the signs at the site are not adequate. In response, the operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state ‘3 hour max stay’. Further, the operator has provided a site map that confirms the location of the 21 signs at the site. Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, explains that signs ‘must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand’. I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. The appellant has questioned the accuracy of the ANPR system. The British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by Parking Operators in order to ensure it is in good working order and the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is 99% accurate. I accept the appellant disputes the ANPR evidence provided by the operator, however as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. Further, the appellant has stated that there is no keeper liability. The operator provided the appellant with the opportunity to provide the name and address of the driver. As the appellant did not provide this information, the operator can transfer liability to the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Parking Charge Notice will need to comply with the regulations set out in section 9 of PoFA, 2012. From the evidence, I am satisfied that liability was transferred correctly and in line with the provisions set out in PoFA (2012). As the appellant failed to provide the driver details, she is liable for the Parking Charge as the Registered Keeper. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. Within Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it requires parking operators to have the written authority from the landowner to operate on the land. As such, I must consider whether the Operator has met the requirements of this section of the BPA Code of Practice. In this instance, the operator has provided evidence in response to this ground of appeal. As such, I am satisfied that the operator has the required authority to operate on the land in question and has met the requirements set out in Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant says the parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notice’. The signs at the site state that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge £100. Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. As the appellant parked for longer than permitted, I can only conclude the parking operator issued the parking charge correctly.


*edit. I have just realised it says I entered 21:52 and exited at 23:42. The assessor says it was 3 hour max stay (the signs say 90 mins) which if she read incorrectly would mean I should not pay as I was not there for 3 hours...

I phoned up Krispy Kreme where I was and asked for the branch manager's email address, maybe I should give a shot at asking him to cancel the PCN