PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

Until we get some decisions we have no idea. There are some appeals which it is a no brainer to proceed with, such as when there is no discount available or the keeper is not the driver as there is nothing to lose. (keeper simply names the driver to stop keeper liability dead).

A loss at popla does not mean a bigger charge but taking it to popla in the 1st place means no discount is available.

M1

[wheretheresawill]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

More correspondence -

Before your appeal was determined, it was adjourned pending a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (B2/2014/2010).

As you will be aware, the decision of the Court of Appeal has now been handed down. A copy of the judgment is available on the POPLA website.


As previously stated would happen, the Lead Adjudicator has directed that the case will be adjourned for a further 21 days. The case will therefore not be listed before 21 days in order to allow both parties to make any representations in light of the Court of Appeal decision. It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.


Since a larger than usual number of appeals will therefore now fall to be considered on or after the same day, there may inevitably be some delay before your case is decided.

Yours sincerely
POPLA Administrative

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

I wish to make further submissions in support of my appeal sent previously.

The protection of freedoms act 2012 schedule 4 allows the opportunity for parking companies liable for the actions of the driver but only if full compliance is achieved. In the case of an ANPR situation compliance with section 9 is required.

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. The notice merely indicates a time of entry in to the car park and an exit time from the car park. The BPA code of practice makes reference to the fact that entry is not parking and dictates a grace period must be allowed partly for this very reason. As the keeper is not the person who was driving the keeper cannot know what the period of parking is and the legislation dictates it must be specified, presumably for that very reason. In Woodchester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209 (14 July 1998) it was held that the specified information required to be provided by legislation should indeed be accurate and that the failure made the relevant notice invalid. It was also the deciding factor in Parking Eye v Mrs X Case No: 3JD08399 IN THE ALTRINCHAM COUNTY COURT.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c289944f81b4...&alloworigin=1

Sections E & F has not been complied with at all. Other sections are not totally complied with either. The keeper is not invited to pay.



The operator may suggest that the charge is commercially Justified in line with ParkingEye v Beavis however as explained in Beavis this was for a contract where the operator paid £1000 per week which is not the case here.





M1

[wheretheresawill]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

Thanks for that M1. I have now submitted that as further evidence.

Have got some more correspondence but no verdict yet. Do you think it can be squashed seeing how they have put an incorrect date 'adjourned until 07 June 2014'!?

Before your appeal was determined, it was adjourned pending a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (B2/2014/2010).

As you will be aware, the decision of the Court of Appeal has now been handed down. A copy of the judgment is available on the POPLA website.

As previously stated would happen, the Lead Adjudicator directed that the case be adjourned for a further 21 days in order to allow both parties to make any representations in light of the Court of Appeal decision. It does remain the position that it is for the party seeking to rely on any authority from a case in the higher courts, to explain how they submit it relates to the appeal in question and in particular the matter to be determined.

Since a larger than usual number of appeals now fall to be considered on or after the same day, the Lead Adjudicators has directed that the matter be further adjourned until 07 June 2014.

Yours sincerely
POPLA Administrative Team

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

If only.

M1

[wheretheresawill]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

More correspondence and nothing decided yet!

Dear Sir or Madam

Following the Court of Appeal judgment in ParkingEye Limited -v- Beavis (a copy of which can be viewed on the POPLA website) a further appeal has now been filed at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.


Where there is a specific application for an adjournment or where it appears, or has already appeared, to the Assessor that there is no other issue upon which the appeal could be determined, POPLA cases will be adjourned pending a decision of the Supreme Court. There is currently no date fixed at the Supreme Court but the Registry have indicated that the matter will not be heard before the end of July 2016 and judgment will then be reserved. However, the Appellant has indicated they will seek to have the matter linked with another case due for hearing later this year.


Accordingly, your case will now be adjourned to a provisional date for determination of 28 October 2015. The position should become clearer in the next few weeks, when the matter will be reviewed.


Yours sincerely


POPLA Administrative Team

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

I disagree with them but perhaps it's because we added keeper liability later. Still not a major issue.

M1

[wheretheresawill]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

I didn't pick up on anything negative but you are the expert!

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

They should decide any issue not connected with Beavis such as keeper liability but it seems they might not be bothered to do so any more as a few people are getting this letter.

No big deal.

M1

[wheretheresawill]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

Hi M1,

POPLA have emailed back saying the appeal has been rejected, see their reply below. Is this the end of the road? There are no more options but paying parkingeye £85?

We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body,under the brand of Parking on Private Land 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.


We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into account all of the evidence at hand and applying
the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to reject the
Appeal on this occasion. To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to
the Car Park Operator in the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) will not be cancelled.

Reasons for dismissing the Appeal


• The Appellant stated in the Appeal that the amount of the parking charge is unreasonable. Pursuant
to the guidance set out in the Supreme Court’s decision in ParkingEye v Beavis and in accordance
with the BPA Code of Practice, a reasonable charge would be £100.00. As the charge the Car Park
Operator has imposed is equal to or less than £100.00, we have no option but to reject the Appeal.
• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the signage at the car park is not adequate and that they
were unaware that they had entered into a contract by remaining at the location. Upon reviewing the
evidence provided by both parties we contend that the signage is adequate and does comply with
the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.


• The Appellant has requested evidence that the Car Park Operator has a legal right to manage the
site. We are in receipt of sufficient evidence from the Car Park Operator to satisfy us that the Car Park
Operator does have a legal right to manage parking at this location and to issue Parking Charge
Notices. Accordingly, the Appeal is rejected.


• The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the ANPR system was not synchronised and/or properly
maintained. Upon reviewing the evidence provided, there is no evidence to suggest that the ANPR
system was not correctly synchronised and maintained in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice. Accordingly the Appeal is rejected.
The Appellant has stated in the Appeal that the Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) in that all the relevant information was not present on the Notice to
Keeper. From the evidence provided it would appear that all the information required under POFA has
been provided on the Notice to Keeper and the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant with POFA.
Accordingly the Appeal is rejected.


• Paragraph 13 of the BPA Code of Practice requires that a reasonable grace period should be given to
allow motorists to enter the car park and decide whether to stay or go, and also to leave the car park.
Upon reviewing the evidence received from both parties, it appears that the Car Park Operator has
allowed the Appellant a sufficient grace period in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice.
Accordingly the Appeal is rejected.


To the Appellant


To avoid further action, including Court action, the Appellant can make payment to the Car Park Operator in
the next 28 days. The Parking Charge Notice will not be cancelled.


To the Car Park Operator


As the Appeal has been rejected, you must allow the Appellant 28 days to make payment. If payment is not
forthcoming, you may take further action to recover the PCN.


This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either
party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

Did they provide evidence to you as popla are claiming at various stages ?

M1

[wheretheresawill]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

I didn't receive any evidence from car park operator (parkingeye.co.uk). Any emails and letters that were sent to me I updated this thread with.

What options are there now? See if they actually want to go to court over this or give in and pay £85!? :colbert:

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

popla.evidence@wrighthassall.co.uk aos@britishparking.co.uk director@ispa.co.uk

Dear Sir/madam,

I am writing with regard to popla appeal xxxxxx

I have noted the decision but i am mystified as to how that decision could be reached with the evidence available. As i understand it, the operator must prove their case. Having received no evidence pack at all then it cannot be that a fair process has taken place.

This is not the way popla have decided appeals in the past or indeed have said they would decide issues on appeal. It is up to the the operator to prove their case and absence of proo is not even remotely close to evidence of anything.

This decision should be reversed to maintain the integrity of the appeals process.

Yours etc

What options are there now? See if they actually want to go to court over this or give in and pay £85!?

donotreply@morrisonsplc.co.uk if you have a bank statement copy that and complain to that email address (yes really) other than these 2 options you are correct.

M1

[wheretheresawill]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

Hi M1,

I've emailed popla.evidence@wrighthassall.co.uk aos@britishparking.co.uk director@ispa.co.uk stating what you recommended to say but no reply yet.

I am about to send an email to donotreply@morrisonsplc.co.uk - would you mind giving it a quick once-over before I send it? TYIA

Hi Morrisons, I received an unwarranted parking ticket in the Reigate Morrisons car park when I was in your store not knowing I had a time limit. Parking Eye are demanding I pay £85 now and I hope you can put an end to this by telling Parking Eye to cancel the ticket please. I have attached my bank statement proving I was at your store when they gave me this ticket!


Please let me know if you can help.

[mystery1]

Re: PCN Parking Eye Appeal denied Now POPLA Appeal or pay?

Hi Morrisons, I received an unwarranted parking ticket in the Reigate Morrisons car park when I was in your store not knowing I had a time limit. Parking Eye are demanding I pay £85 now and I hope you can put an end to this by telling Parking Eye to cancel the ticket please. I have attached my bank statement proving I was at your store when they gave me this ticket!


Please let me know if you can help as i like the store and would consider my shopping habits if this farce was allowed to continue.

M1