Tweet
Re: ParkingEye - POPLA
Hello, I recieved the evidence pack from ParkingEye today. I'm struggling to edit the PDF to remove personal details so here's the text of the first part and a PDF of the second part. I noticed they haven't included a contract as requested and only submitted a witness statement. Should I respond to POPLA stating this?
Rules and Conditions
This site is a 3 hour maximum free stay customer car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). There are 29 signs, placed at the entrance, exit & throughout the site stating the terms and conditions.
Evidence G
Please find enclosed a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner showing that on the date of the parking event ParkingEye had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.
Further Information
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.
Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”
ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.
Initially, ParkingEye would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality, and have built up this expertise with almost 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. ParkingEye is regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.
Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The British Parking Association Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras at Section 21. We comply fully with this;
21.1 – ParkingEye uses ANPR cameras in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. All signage contains the universally recognised symbol for the use of these cameras, and it is made clear that ANPR technology is in use on site.
21.2 – All data undergoes a multiple stage checking process, undertaken by trained ParkingEye staff to ensure that Parking Charges are issued correctly.
21.3 – All ANPR equipment is monitored and kept in good working order. A central team of trained Technical Support Engineers proactively monitor the performance of all systems to ensure the accuracy of data collected. Automated monitoring and alerting ensure potential issues are highlighted and dealt with quickly along with data management routines to ensure affected data does not result in a Parking Charge being issued. Dedicated mobile engineers respond to physical faults which require on-site resolution with testing periods to ensure equipment is configured and working to our high standards. Equipment is selected and deployed to ensure a reliable and robust solution which performs consistently and accurately.
Physical and logical access to data is restricted and processed securely. Full auditing of user access and actions ensures clear and full accountability. Dedicated server facilities are protected by named user access control systems.
ParkingEye has passed the relevant and most recent BPA audit.
21.4 – ParkingEye complies with all of the relevant guidelines including those set out by the ICO, DVLA and CO.
21.5 – The Notices to Keeper comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and software are fully compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. We ensure that the cameras are checked regularly
by both automated routines and Technical Support Engineers to ensure that they are in good working order, and that they are producing accurate data. We have passed both our British Parking Association and DVLA audits and follow all DVLA requirements concerning the data that we obtain.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. Institutions that use NTP technology include; HM Revenue & Customs, The Metropolitan Police, NASA, Inland Revenue, The Land Registry, RBS, NASDAQ, Buckingham Palace, GlaxoSmithKline, Deutsche Bank, BBC, NHS, BAE Systems, BT, HP, DELL and the Bank of England. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team at ParkingEye Head Office. If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, Parking Charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a Parking Charge has been issued incorrectly, and ParkingEye goes to great lengths to ensure that all Parking Charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to ParkingEye, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that Parking Charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.
ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations.
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on yellow background. There is sufficient ambient lighting on site.
There are also signs at the entrance to the car park which adjoin an illuminated public road and so we can confirm that there is sufficient ambient lighting at this site.
It is up to the person who is seeking to park in an area to make sure that they can validly park in that area. The onus is on the person parking.
Whilst the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations 2013 apply to consumer contracts which were entered into after June 2013, this type of parking contract is excluded from the regulations due to the “automated commercial premises” exemption. As a result, the right to cancel the Parking Contract you entered into on 06/09/2015 does not apply.
Hello, I recieved the evidence pack from ParkingEye today. I'm struggling to edit the PDF to remove personal details so here's the text of the first part and a PDF of the second part. I noticed they haven't included a contract as requested and only submitted a witness statement. Should I respond to POPLA stating this?
Rules and Conditions
This site is a 3 hour maximum free stay customer car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). There are 29 signs, placed at the entrance, exit & throughout the site stating the terms and conditions.
Evidence G
Please find enclosed a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner showing that on the date of the parking event ParkingEye had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
Authority
ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.
Further Information
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.
Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”
ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.
Initially, ParkingEye would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality, and have built up this expertise with almost 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured.
We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. ParkingEye is regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.
Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.
The British Parking Association Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras at Section 21. We comply fully with this;
21.1 – ParkingEye uses ANPR cameras in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. All signage contains the universally recognised symbol for the use of these cameras, and it is made clear that ANPR technology is in use on site.
21.2 – All data undergoes a multiple stage checking process, undertaken by trained ParkingEye staff to ensure that Parking Charges are issued correctly.
21.3 – All ANPR equipment is monitored and kept in good working order. A central team of trained Technical Support Engineers proactively monitor the performance of all systems to ensure the accuracy of data collected. Automated monitoring and alerting ensure potential issues are highlighted and dealt with quickly along with data management routines to ensure affected data does not result in a Parking Charge being issued. Dedicated mobile engineers respond to physical faults which require on-site resolution with testing periods to ensure equipment is configured and working to our high standards. Equipment is selected and deployed to ensure a reliable and robust solution which performs consistently and accurately.
Physical and logical access to data is restricted and processed securely. Full auditing of user access and actions ensures clear and full accountability. Dedicated server facilities are protected by named user access control systems.
ParkingEye has passed the relevant and most recent BPA audit.
21.4 – ParkingEye complies with all of the relevant guidelines including those set out by the ICO, DVLA and CO.
21.5 – The Notices to Keeper comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and software are fully compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. We ensure that the cameras are checked regularly
by both automated routines and Technical Support Engineers to ensure that they are in good working order, and that they are producing accurate data. We have passed both our British Parking Association and DVLA audits and follow all DVLA requirements concerning the data that we obtain.
Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. Institutions that use NTP technology include; HM Revenue & Customs, The Metropolitan Police, NASA, Inland Revenue, The Land Registry, RBS, NASDAQ, Buckingham Palace, GlaxoSmithKline, Deutsche Bank, BBC, NHS, BAE Systems, BT, HP, DELL and the Bank of England. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.
Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team at ParkingEye Head Office. If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, Parking Charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.
It is important to note that cameras and ANPR servers are directly attached as an integrated solution situated on-site therefore ensuring the accuracy of the ANPR read and associated date-timestamp. Transactional data and images are recorded locally before batch transfer to our central systems.
There is no evidence to suggest that a Parking Charge has been issued incorrectly, and ParkingEye goes to great lengths to ensure that all Parking Charges are issued correctly. The data taken from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras is sent to ParkingEye, where it undergoes a checking process of up to 19 stages. This ensures that no errors have been made. There are various other procedures in place to ensure that Parking Charges are issued correctly, and there is no reason to believe that an error has occurred in this case.
ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations.
The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on yellow background. There is sufficient ambient lighting on site.
There are also signs at the entrance to the car park which adjoin an illuminated public road and so we can confirm that there is sufficient ambient lighting at this site.
It is up to the person who is seeking to park in an area to make sure that they can validly park in that area. The onus is on the person parking.
Whilst the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations 2013 apply to consumer contracts which were entered into after June 2013, this type of parking contract is excluded from the regulations due to the “automated commercial premises” exemption. As a result, the right to cancel the Parking Contract you entered into on 06/09/2015 does not apply.
Comment