Pcn from pea _WON

[harish_maru]

hi all,

got a pcn for over staying 5 mins. But according to my watch it was about 7 secs.
notice attached.

do i just ignore them until they send me a court order ? or tell them about the new rule that come into force "10 -minute 'grace period'" .

the person driving my car was a friend from Malawi in center Africa.
can i send them his address and i wounder what pcn can do about it.

regards
harry

[mystery1]

Re: Pcn from pea

The 10 minute rule is nothing to do with private parking and everything to do with council parking.


Dear Sirs,

I, as registered keeper, wish to invoke your appeals procedure. The driver did not overstay as they took time to find a space and read the notice before they could accept any parking terms as is covered under the BPA code of practice to which you allegedly subscribe but apparently choose to ignore. PoFA 2012 schedule 4 para 8 makes it clear that you must state the period of parking, which you did not do. In any event your charges are penal in nature and not a genuine pre estimate of loss.

I am under no statutory obligation to name the driver and will not do so at this time

If you reject my appeal please supply a popla code.

Yours etc


If they supply a popla code please return and i'll sort out a popla appeal for you.


Of course should you have both your appeal an popla appeals rejected then i'd name the driver. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ce-can-be.html





M1

[harish_maru]

Re: Pcn from pea

thank u M1,
have a great day.

regards
harry

[harish_maru]

Re: Pcn from pea

hi all,
in today's out come, does it mean that we all have 2 pay our fine, that has inquired in the past?

[mystery1]

Re: Pcn from pea

It ain't good but permission to appeal to the supreme court has been granted.

There are other areas to attack such as is their sufficient detail on the signs to actually make a contract ?

Appeals are still possible.

M1

[harish_maru]

Re: Pcn from pea

thanks M1 sir.

[harish_maru]

Re: Pcn from pea

hi all i have just receive another letter from them, offering me to appeal to popla.

what should i do now.

regards
harish

[mystery1]

Re: Pcn from pea

I'll get back to you asap.

M1

[mystery1]

Re: Pcn from pea

Bearing in mind you can still name the driver if you lose at popla (we don't know their reaction to Beavis) then you simply must appeal to popla as it's essentially a free shot at getting rid of them.

I would appeal along the lines of



1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.


2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not. There was no breach of contract.


3. PEA do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.

4. PEA have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.

6. No keeper liability having failed to comply with PoFA 2012 schedule 4.








1.The charges are penalties.


According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"


£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle could have purchased a ticket for £x Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense. If the charge should have been £x then £100 is clearly a penalty. It is unconscionable and extravagent. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss as the loss of revenue being £x is crystal clear nor is it a genuine offer to park for £100. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss. £100 cannot be so as the figures quoted include business costs. Parking Eye lost in court on this very point in Parking Eye v Cargius which distinguishes Beavis.


I require PEA to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. Parking Eye cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.


According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner imposes a parking fee for the area in question, there is only the limited loss to whoever it is due. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''


In Parking Eye v Beavis it was found that the charges were penalties although specific to that car park they were commercially Justifiable which clearly can't be in the case or trespass. Parking Eye v Cargius distinguished Beavis in relation to paid parking. Beavis is also subject to appeal to the supreme court in any case.


When one looks at the sign one sees that blue badge holders are only allowed to park in disabled bays and are charged £100 if they don't then it becomes even clearer that £100 is to deter people from misusing disabled bays and that £100 is an arbitrary amount charged for all transgressions and as such is an unenforceable penalty.


2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a carpark where they could have paid £x had they seen the signs which they did not. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100.

As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.


3.. Contract with landowner - no locus standi


PEA do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that PEA has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Parking eye to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.

In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.


So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between PEA and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked): http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...&alloworigin=1


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 unless they are deceiving the taxman.

4. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.

The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.


The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:

“The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead.”


For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.


When with reference to the BCP Code of Practice, it actually states:

"There must be enough colour contrast between the text and its background, each of which should be a single solid colour. The best way to achieve this is to have black text on a white background, or white text on a black background. Combinations such as blue on yellow are not easy to read and may cause problems for drivers with impaired colour vision"



5. ANPR ACCURACY


This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted,calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.



So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.



6. PEA have not met the requirements of PoFA 2012 schedule 4 and the keeper therefore cannot be held liable.


8 (2) The notice must—
(a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period
of parking to which the notice relates;


The PCN has time of event as 21.06 which as the BPA code of practice mandates a grace period to decide whether to enter a contract cannot be a specific period of parking which it can be seen MUST be included. I


(c) state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been
given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)
(b), (c) and (f);


7 (2) c (2) The notice must—

(b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the
specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in
which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to
the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;



(c) inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of
parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid
parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i) specified in the notice; and
(ii) no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);



(f) specify the time when the notice is given and the date


This required information is unclear or missing.








M1

[harish_maru]

Re: Pcn from pea

PARKING ON PRIVATE LAND APPEALS
PO Box 70748 London EC1P 1SN0845 207 7700
enquiries@popla.org.ukwww.popla.org.uk
Parking on Private Land Appeals is administered by the Transport and Environment Committee of London CouncilsCalls to and from Parking on Private Land Appeals may be recorded11 June 2015Reference 5481105009always quote in any communication with POPLAColleen Maru (Appellant)-vParking& Enforcement Agency Limited (Operator)The Operator issued parking charge notice number 183250683 arisingout of a presence on private land, of a vehicle with registration mark xxxxxxx.The Appellant appealed against liability for the parking charge.The Assessor has considered the evidence of both parties and hasdetermined that the appeal be allowed.
The Assessor’s reasons are as set out.The Operator should now cancel the parking charge notice forthwith.5481105009 2 11 June 2015Reasons for the Assessor’s DeterminationIt is the Appellant’s case that the parking charge notice was issuedincorrectly.
The Operator has not produced a copy of the parking charge notice, nor anyevidence to show a breach of the conditions of parking occurred, nor anyevidence that shows what the conditions of parking, in fact, were.Accordingly I have no option but to allow the appeal.Shehla PirwanyAssessor

- - - Updated - - -

A BIG THANK YOU, TO ALL OF YOU.
SPECIALLY TO M1 SIR.

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.