Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration - won

[dave280278]

I received a PCN from Parking Eye when i had purchased a vaild ticket but only the first 4 digits of the vehicle registration were entered on the ticket.
I appealed online and received a letter today acknowledging the incorrect reg was entered and offering a goodwill gesture reduced payment of £20.
What can i do to successfully appeal this please?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

So you appealed to PE and they just made an offer of £20 ? Ask them for a popla code (unless you want to pay £20 of course but that's up to you)

M1

[dave280278]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

The letter states
"It has come to our attention that the incorrect vehicle registration was input on the date of the parking event which has therefore resulted in a parking charge being issued.
As a gesture of goodwill we would offer you the opportunity to make a discounted payment of £20."

I have no intention of paying any charges as I don't believe they have any reason to claim losses against me.

I will request a POPLA code, is there anything I should/shouldn't put in the letter please?

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

Yes, if the correct registration was input but the machine only printed in part then say so.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/bfcdd95c68b8...&alloworigin=1

M1

[dave280278]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

The case study is virtually identical to my issue. Thanks again for the info, I'll keep you posted with PE response...

[dave280278]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

So the saga continues....

Wrote appeal letter 18/11 sent by recorded delivery stating full reg was entered but not printed etc asking for a popla reference.
Received a parking charge notice reminder dated 30/11 same format as the original notice £100 but with option to pay £60 until 5/12 or right to appeal on reverse of the letter. No reference to my letter 18/11 or popla reference.
I appealed online and attached my letter 18/11 and received an automated reply from parking eye saying appeal received and would respond in 28 days.
THEN 2 days later received a letter dated 1/12 stating my appeal had been rejected and no other internal appeal available.
Gave me a popla reference.
Said again "goodwill gesture" would offer a reduced rate for 14 days although it did not state what that reduced rate was.

I guess I need to appeal via popla.
Why would they send me a charge reminder before sending me the appeal rejection though? Surely thats against their own procedures?

Any advice in what i should/shouldn't include in the popla appeal?
Should I reference the case study?

Thanks in advance

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

They want money. That's why.

If you put the pcn and appeals (sanitised) & signs (if you have them) i can sort a suitable popla appeal.


M1

[dave280278]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

Please see attachments containing:-

Parking ticket purchased
PCN
1st appeal rejection letter
PCN reminder
2nd appeal rejection letter

I don't have a picture of the ticket machine yet but will get one tomorrow and send.

thanks for your help so far, very much appreciated

If I've missed anything let me know.

Dave

[sjas]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

Hello,

My case is exactly similar to yours.

[Llleonidus]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

When I was in a similar situation this is how I won my case..

What I did when appealing to parking eye was ask to see a contract between them and the land owener stating that they can collect money for them. I am yet to see a contract produced then you need to ask to see clear signage of the car park. They will be almost always send this out but with no contract, they can't just ask people for money without proving they are legal entitled to it. But seeing as you've already exhausted that avenue you need to now approach popla and ask them to contact private eye and prove they can collect the alleged debt on behalf of the land owner.

This is how I won and how many other people have won. Popla are hit and miss and it's currently about 50/50 who they side with, I would also add the fact that the wrong reg was on the ticket but they need to cover all points in your appeal.

Please find enclosed a template letter to send to popla. Obviously edit accordingly.

POPLA REF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CAR REG XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
As the registered keeper of the car mentioned above I would like to appeal and have cancelled the parking charge notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd for a number of reasons outlined below:
1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority
2. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
3. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
6. Unfair terms of contract
7. Without a contract
8. Non BPA compliant signage
1. ParkingEye Ltd has no contractual authority
In the notices they have sent me ParkingEye Ltd have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that ParkingEye Ltd are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.
2. The charge is punitive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
Judging by the wording of the parking charge notice this is clearly an attempt to enforce this charge under paragraph B 19.5 of the BPA Code of Practice in which it states that this must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that may have incurred. ParkingEye Ltd claim that my car was in the car park for 2 and 43 minutes, 2 hours of which are free. They are asking for a charge of £100 for this penalty. This alone is far more than the cost to the landowner could have loss for the time my car was said to have parked there. The charge is clearly punitive and disproportionate to any alleged breach of contract.
Furthermore as the operator is clearly seeking to impose a penalty, it is their sole responsibility to provide a full breakdown as proof of the pre-estimated loss of £100. As of this point they have made no effort to provide me with a breakdown of the costs they allegedly incurred. To justify the charge of £100, I require ParkingEye Ltd to back up their decision by providing POPLA with a full and detailed financial breakdown of the pre-estimated costs they have suffered as a result of the charge in question. I would like to add that normal costs of running their business (their day to day costs like provision of parking, enforcement, signage, salaries, rent etc) must not be included in the breakdown as ParkingEye Ltd would need to pay these irrespective of this alleged charge. Parking enforcement costs cannot possibly represent any loss resulting from an alleged breach of contract, as these costs would need to be paid whether the breach had happened or not.
In summary not only is the £100 charge completely disproportionate meaning that it is punitive and is breaking the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, but there can be no loss shown at all as no pre-estimate charge has been put together making the charge unenforceable against me or the driver.
3. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
As keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was I submit that I am not liable to any charge. In regards to the notices I have received Parking Eye has made it clear that it is operating under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act but has not fully met all the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver.
I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The Act clearly states that the parking charge notice to keeper should invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge (or if he/she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and pass a copy of the notice on to that driver). In their parking charge notice letter at no point did they actually invite me as the registered keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead they imply that my only choice is to give up the name of the driver of the vehicle (when in actual fact I am under no legal obligation to do so). The wording of the PCN actually makes it sound like I have little choice but to give up the driver and does not actually state the choice to pay it myself. Parking Eye should also have issued a Notice to Driver stuck on the vehicle to back up their claims that the car was even parked in the first place, which in this case they failed to do
4. ANPR Accuracy and Compliance
I require ParkingEye Ltd 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 ParkingEye Ltd 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 from 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 ParkingEye Ltd 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 in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.
In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:
''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''
At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. No signs at the car park clearly tell drivers about this technology nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. This means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the POFA 2012 (keeper liability requires strict compliance), a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case). This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.
5. No Contract was entered into between the Parking Eye and the Driver or Registered keeper
Although I was not the driver I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Parking Eye clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed.
It is surely the responsibility of ParkingEye Ltd to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require ParkingEye Ltd to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that ANPR cameras are in use on this site.
Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and then agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.
I request that ParkingEye Ltd provide concrete evidence that a contract existed between themselves and the driver on the day in question, which meets all the legal requirements of forming a contract. They should include specific things including, agreement from both parties, clarity and certainty of terms etc. If they are not met then the contract would be deemed “unfair” under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
6. Unfair terms of contract
Although there is no contract between Parking Eye and the driver (or myself), if there were then I would ask POPLA to consider this charge to be unfair and non-binding based on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. There is a clear list of terms that apply. I have highlighted the following specifically as I believe they apply directly to this case:
2. (1) (e) Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
5. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was brought in to protect consumers from unfair contracts such as the one ParkingEye Ltd are suggesting. A company such as Parking Eye needs to actually prove that the driver saw, read and accepted the terms, which is impossible because this did not actually happen.
7. Without a contract
Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award ParkingEye Ltd could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to car park there was no loss to them at all and therefore should be no charge.
8. Non BPA compliant signage
The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver
Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. Furthermore, the signs are not lit which renders reading them at night impossible. As at the time the Parking Charge was incurred (28/10/2013 17:38) it was dark and therefore not possible to see any signs which is not compliant with the BPA standards. I refer the Assessor to a recent POPLA case (ref: XXXX) in which the signs in a nearby ParkingEye car park (Fistral Beach) were not illuminated at night and as a consequence the appeal was allowed as the operator “failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention of the appellant”.
The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height and lighting of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.
The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.
The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.
I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

[Llleonidus]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

This is just how my experience went and the template I used to get the charge quashed. It's a bit long winded but worked for me. You may still want to take mystery1 advice. I don't have any experience in parking charge notices other than the one I had and a few others I've helped out.

[mystery1]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

That's a pretty old appeal which was perfect in it's day but sadly isn't too great after Beavis.

M1

[Llleonidus]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

Then hush my mouth. I wondered why more people didn't know about this amazing appeal. It's because it doesn't work anymore lol.

[dave280278]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

Hi M1

Please see attached pictures of the signage and ticket machine.

Many thanks

Dave

[sjas]

Re: Parking Eye - incomplete vehicle registration

That's a pretty old appeal which was perfect in it's day but sadly isn't too great after Beavis.

M1

Hello mystery1,

I have gone through a number of example Appeal Templates and this particular ground of Keeper Liability pasted below, what does this actually mean? I am unable to fathom this out completely. Please can you assist what this means?

4. Keeper liability


Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle










4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met ....




6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—








(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.








9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(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;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).
(3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices which each specify different parts of a single period of parking).
(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.
(7)When the notice is given it must be accompanied by any evidence prescribed under paragraph 10.
(8)In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a)any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and
(b)any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.








The notice to keeper does not specify a period of parking. A driver can not know at which point a random camera captures their entry as the cameras may not be in plain sight needing a high vantage point and in any event the focal point is not known or pointed out to the motorist. That is clearly as unfair a term in a contract as you can get. This is why the legislators have have made the decision to require a specific period of parking. As per Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) when the legislators require something to be specified it must be accurate. The notice to keeper merely indicates whenthe vehicle entered the car park but not when the period of parking began as clearly a vehicle on the move is not parked. The same is true of the exit.


The statutory warning in 2 (f) is incorrect and does not allow time for service.


The notice keeper does not meet keeper liability statutory requirements and keeper liability cannot apply. There is no evidence as to the drivers identity and the keeper was not the driver so the appeal must be upheld.