Parking eye Help

[crackers]

• #1

hi everyone I need help! I was sent a penalty notice by Parking Eye last year I appealed to POPLA and my case was on hold because of the PARKING EYE V BEVIS case. This morning I have have received a solictors letter from WRIGHT HASSALL (lol) Solicitors asking me for evidence within 7 days. I am unsure what to do now. They are asking me for further evidence. Is there a template I could use?

[Kati]

Re: Parking eye Help

:bump: for [MENTION=5354]mystery1[/MENTION] xx

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye Help

Can i see the letter, suitably sanitised?

M1

[crackers]

Re: Parking eye Help

We have been appointed by the BPA to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Lane Appeals (POPLA) in respect of the appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator's positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.
POPLA received a number of appeals that related to the PCN not being genuine Pre-estimate of Loss (GPEOL) Your appeal had been initially marked at GPEOL appeal and was therefore placed on hold. You should of received a letter confirming this from BPA at the time.
The reason your appeal was placed on hold was due to the case of ParkingEye V Beavis, which was being heard in the Supreme Court. This case addressed the requirements of GPEOL. Judgement was handed down on 4 November 2015 and confirmed PCN is a necessity to ensure proper use of a car park, and also to ensure that there is a commercial justification for the car park operator to manage the car park

- - - Updated - - -

it goes on .........to say that given the length of time that has passed since the appeal was lodged, we have been asked to contact you to provide further evidence in relation to the appeal...you must send evidence within 7 days

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye Help

Ok, so what is your appeal, what does the evidence pack contain ?

M1

[crackers]

Re: Parking eye Help

This was my appeal, I successfully won against Anthea the previous year and i copied and pasted the same appeal letter. Looks like ive made a couple of mistakes by leaving Anthea in instead of replacing it with Parking Eye

[crackers]

Re: Parking eye Help

Appeal reasons:
POPLA Code: XXXXXXXXXXX vehicle Reg: XXXXXXXXX PPC: parking eye ANPR PCN Ref: Alleged XXXXXXXXXXX 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 £90 for an alleged parking contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds: - The payment machine was out of order, 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 Parking Eye ANPR, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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 Parking Eye 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.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye Help

Did you get an evidence pack ?

M1

[crackers]

Re: Parking eye Help

no can't recall getting an evidence pack, when would I have been sent this?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye Help

After you appealed, probably a few weeks later. Pictures of the signs, carpark, PCN etc as well as arguments.

M1

[crackers]

Re: Parking eye Help

Think I did but it's such a long time ago, I wouldn't know where I put it

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye Help

Well 1st of all we need to establish if you got 1 before we worry what it might say.

It would look like the one from http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...586#post636586

M1

[crackers]

Re: Parking eye Help

I looked at the link, and no I don't recall getting anything like that

[mystery1]

Re: Parking eye Help

Ok, email popla. Lucky for me the prankster already composed this which saves me the bother

M1

I have not received an evidence pack from the operator. I therefore assume the operator has decided not to contest the case. As the operator has not provided any evidence that the alleged event occurred, or explained how a contact was formed, or if the charge is contractual, for breach of contract or trespass, or that the signage was adequate to form a contract by performance, or that in line with the Beavis judgment, the wording was clear and the charge brought prominently to the motorists notice, I submit there is no case to answer to. This would be in line with previous POPLA decisions where the operator submitted no evidence.

'The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.
The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.
Reasons for the Assessor’s Determination
It is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issued incorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor any evidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor any evidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.
Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.
XXXX Assessor''

As a belts and braces I would also recommend raising a complaint with the BPA that you have not received an evidence pack from the operator. The email address is aos@britishparking.co.uk