Tweet
Hi all,
another driver, using my car parked outside a pet shop on dereham road in Norwich whilst visiting KFC.
The pet shop was shut, (post 7pm) and the driver visited KFC for approx 15mins.
NPE have a CCTV camera mounted across the road on another building and have used this to obtain the keeper details from the DVLA (despite recording the public highway as well as the parking space)
I've submitted a appeal using a template I found on the MSE website, and have received my POPLA code.
however, I'm totally lost when it comes to legal matters, and really don't know how to analyse the rejection and submit an appeal to POPLA.
in my appeal I mentioned their ICO registration didn't list the use of CCTV for anything other then monitoring staff and prevention of crime,
they have since amended that registration.
the location and sign can be seen in this google maps link https://goo.gl/maps/2s0vs, my car was parked where the silver car is,
this is a sanitised version of the rejection letter
Thank you for your letter of appeal against the above parking charge notice issued to you on XXXX for reason ‘Unauthorised Parking’ at ‘The Pet Stop, Dereham Road, Norwich’.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
1- The above location is private property and there are advertised terms and conditions which the driver is expected to abide by in order to obtain permission to park.
2- Contractual Obligation/Parking Charge amount. As confirmed by the recent dismissal of the ParkingEye v Beavis appeal, we submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties' rights and obligations arising
PCN Ref: XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX
POPLA Verification Code: XXXX
under the Contract. The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the recommended British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant with paragraph 19.5 of the BPA code. Furthermore, the BPA has authorised us to charge at this level. The PCN was for the sum due to the Driver, in consideration for the Operator making parking facilities available to them. To borrow the words of Lord Roskill, with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed, in Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co and others [1983] 1 WLR 399, 402H, he stated: "The clause was not a penalty clause because it provided for payment of money on the happening of a specified event other than a breach of contractual duty owed by the contemplated payer to the contemplated payee." Further, it would be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre-estimation of loss. Such a limitation arises only in respect of penalty clauses, not in respect of the contractually agreed consideration for performance of an obligation. We again refer you to the recent Judgment of ParkingEye v Beavis, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal's Judgment it is stated that a parking charge should be equated to a disincentive for drivers, not a penalty, as the charges are not so grossly unreasonable as to be unenforceable at common law. Moreover, it is stated that it would be correct to interpret Parliament's intention on passing section 56 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as: "...being in the public interest that parking charges of the kind now under consideration should be recoverable, provided that they had been brought clearly to the attention of the motorist at the time he made use of the car park." Please note that in the recent Judgment of Civil Enforcement Limited v Ferris, the claim was decided in Civil Enforcement's favour, and it was decided by the Judge that: "irrespective of the basis of the charge, contract or penalty, Civil Enforcement Limited are completely within their rights to charge to amount set."
3- Norfolk Parking Enforcement have a contract with the landowner giving us full responsibility to issued parking charges to vehicles that have parked outside of their terms and conditions and to pursue payment of said charges in our name through Court if necessary. Please do complain that we are fulfilling the role given to us.
4- Our notice does NOT fail to comply with POFA 2012. 5
- It is not a requirement to state the purpose of our CCTV equipment.
6- Our registration with ICO is correct, please check this information at https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch?reg=316758
You now have a number of options:
1- Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100.00.
2- Make an appeal to POPLA – The Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days from date of this letter. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you will lose the right to the discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the reduced amount of £60.00 you will not be able to apply to POPLA. Appeals to POPLA can be made by post to: POPLA, PO Box 70748, London, EC1P 1SN, or by email to:
...npe...
NORFOLK PARKING ENFORCEMENT LTD
CAR PARK MANAGEMENT & PARKING PROTECTION SYSTEMS
www.parkingprotection.co.uk
Registered office. The Studio, St. Nicholas Close, Elstree, Hertfordshire WD6 3EW Tel 0330 0080371
office address: PO Box 244, Wymondham, Norfolk, NR18 8BZ
email - office@parkingprotection.co.uk
company registration no. 08031075
www.popla.org.uk, quoting the verification number above. POPLA’s Enquiries telephone number is: 0845 207 7700.
3- If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action against you.
Any Help will be greatly appreciated.
another driver, using my car parked outside a pet shop on dereham road in Norwich whilst visiting KFC.
The pet shop was shut, (post 7pm) and the driver visited KFC for approx 15mins.
NPE have a CCTV camera mounted across the road on another building and have used this to obtain the keeper details from the DVLA (despite recording the public highway as well as the parking space)
I've submitted a appeal using a template I found on the MSE website, and have received my POPLA code.
however, I'm totally lost when it comes to legal matters, and really don't know how to analyse the rejection and submit an appeal to POPLA.
in my appeal I mentioned their ICO registration didn't list the use of CCTV for anything other then monitoring staff and prevention of crime,
they have since amended that registration.
the location and sign can be seen in this google maps link https://goo.gl/maps/2s0vs, my car was parked where the silver car is,
this is a sanitised version of the rejection letter
Thank you for your letter of appeal against the above parking charge notice issued to you on XXXX for reason ‘Unauthorised Parking’ at ‘The Pet Stop, Dereham Road, Norwich’.
Having carefully considered the evidence provided by you we have decided to reject your appeal for the following reasons:
1- The above location is private property and there are advertised terms and conditions which the driver is expected to abide by in order to obtain permission to park.
2- Contractual Obligation/Parking Charge amount. As confirmed by the recent dismissal of the ParkingEye v Beavis appeal, we submit that the charge does not cause a significant imbalance of the parties' rights and obligations arising
PCN Ref: XXX
Vehicle Registration: XXX
POPLA Verification Code: XXXX
under the Contract. The charge sought is a contractual term, which is within the recommended British Parking Association (BPA) guidelines, and is compliant with paragraph 19.5 of the BPA code. Furthermore, the BPA has authorised us to charge at this level. The PCN was for the sum due to the Driver, in consideration for the Operator making parking facilities available to them. To borrow the words of Lord Roskill, with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed, in Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co and others [1983] 1 WLR 399, 402H, he stated: "The clause was not a penalty clause because it provided for payment of money on the happening of a specified event other than a breach of contractual duty owed by the contemplated payer to the contemplated payee." Further, it would be erroneous to conclude that the sum claimed must be a genuine pre-estimation of loss. Such a limitation arises only in respect of penalty clauses, not in respect of the contractually agreed consideration for performance of an obligation. We again refer you to the recent Judgment of ParkingEye v Beavis, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. In the Court of Appeal's Judgment it is stated that a parking charge should be equated to a disincentive for drivers, not a penalty, as the charges are not so grossly unreasonable as to be unenforceable at common law. Moreover, it is stated that it would be correct to interpret Parliament's intention on passing section 56 Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as: "...being in the public interest that parking charges of the kind now under consideration should be recoverable, provided that they had been brought clearly to the attention of the motorist at the time he made use of the car park." Please note that in the recent Judgment of Civil Enforcement Limited v Ferris, the claim was decided in Civil Enforcement's favour, and it was decided by the Judge that: "irrespective of the basis of the charge, contract or penalty, Civil Enforcement Limited are completely within their rights to charge to amount set."
3- Norfolk Parking Enforcement have a contract with the landowner giving us full responsibility to issued parking charges to vehicles that have parked outside of their terms and conditions and to pursue payment of said charges in our name through Court if necessary. Please do complain that we are fulfilling the role given to us.
4- Our notice does NOT fail to comply with POFA 2012. 5
- It is not a requirement to state the purpose of our CCTV equipment.
6- Our registration with ICO is correct, please check this information at https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/DoSearch?reg=316758
You now have a number of options:
1- Pay the Parking Charge Notice at the prevailing price of £60.00 within 14 days. Please note that after this time the Parking Charge Notice will rise to £100.00.
2- Make an appeal to POPLA – The Independent Appeals Service, within 28 days from date of this letter. Please be advised that if you opt for independent arbitration of your case you will lose the right to the discounted rate of £60.00, and should POPLA’s decision not go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.00. If you opt to pay the reduced amount of £60.00 you will not be able to apply to POPLA. Appeals to POPLA can be made by post to: POPLA, PO Box 70748, London, EC1P 1SN, or by email to:
...npe...
NORFOLK PARKING ENFORCEMENT LTD
CAR PARK MANAGEMENT & PARKING PROTECTION SYSTEMS
www.parkingprotection.co.uk
Registered office. The Studio, St. Nicholas Close, Elstree, Hertfordshire WD6 3EW Tel 0330 0080371
office address: PO Box 244, Wymondham, Norfolk, NR18 8BZ
email - office@parkingprotection.co.uk
company registration no. 08031075
www.popla.org.uk, quoting the verification number above. POPLA’s Enquiries telephone number is: 0845 207 7700.
3- If you choose to do nothing, we will seek to recover the monies owed to us via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with court action against you.
Any Help will be greatly appreciated.
Comment