ParkingEye PCN

[greglane]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

Hi all,

with the Beavis ruling (just been reading the case notes) in your opinion how do you think my appeal to this PCN will go? I'm not holding my breath!!

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

The penalty and unfair arguments should lose. The contract depends on what evidence is submitted but is a common winning point. Keeper liability is will be interesting because, if i'm correct on the specified parking issue they'll never win at popla. I think i'm correct.

M1

[greglane]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

Hi everyone/and M1 of course.

It's been absolutely months since we had any update on this but of course it was held back because of the Beavis trial. We have received a 7day letter for more evidence (which is actually today because my wife only just forwarded this to me!!) but was wondering if there is any new evidence I could submit? I am so sure since, the signage has changed at the hospital..possibly to make the signage more clear/visible? The letter is below if it helps?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

POPLA received a number of appeals that related to the PCN not being a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss (“GPEOL”). Your appeal had been initially marked as a GPEOL appeal and was therefore placed on hold. You should have received a letter confirming this from the BPA at the time.

The reason your appeal was placed on hold was due to the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis, which was being heard in the Supreme Court. This case addressed the requirements of a GPEOL. Judgment was handed down on 4 November 2015 and confirmed that a PCN is a necessity in order to ensure proper use of a car park, and also to ensure that there is a commercial justification for the car park operator to manage the car park.

For completeness, we are not instructed to act on behalf of either party. Given the length of time that has passed since the Appeal was lodged, we have been asked to contact you to give you the opportunity to provide further evidence in relation to the Appeal. We will then forward this evidence to the Car Park Operator so that they may provide their comments. We will then be able to make a decision on the Appeal.

You must send this evidence within 7 days from the date of this letter. If evidence is not provided we will have no option but to assess the Appeal based on the evidence we have before us. You can send your evidence by email to popla.evidence@wrighthassall.co.uk or by post to POPLA c/o Wright Hassall LLP, Olympus Avenue, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV34 6BF. The email address is monitored for the purposes of receiving evidence only. We are not able to respond to any other correspondence from you nor are we able to provide any information to you over the telephone

[greglane]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

sorry to chase but don't suppose anyone has seen this yet? M1? Looks like today is the last day I can do anything!

sorry for the short notice....

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

Sorry been out at work all day.

I can't think of any additional evidence. May have tweaked the arguments to refer to the sections of Beavis and how they apply. Much depends on Mets evidence pack.

M1

[greglane]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

Not a problem M1 - thank you. Not an expert of course and have no idea if it does make any difference, but I may refer to the fact that the signage appears to have been considerably improved (far clearer and brighter) - so there must be a reason for this..possibly people were missing the fact that it was difficult to see that some signs had restricted parking due to staff parking only? You would have thought they would have a barrier for any staff parking....surely an easy mistake to make especially when people are in a rush to get to see loved ones..in my case seeing my 12 week old daughter who had been admitted!!

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

Indeed signage is always good for attacking, including if there are different areas which are not clearly defined.

M1

[greglane]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

perfect thank you!

[greglane]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

Hi all,

Seems to have taken an age but just last week we finally got a decision on this - as I suspected it was rejected! Is there anything else that can be done now? They still don't know who was driving the car! This case is over a year now...is there ever an expiry on how long a case can go on for? Anyhow this was their response:- (I didn't question the last point!?)

"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.

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

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.

Did they supply the evidence to you ?

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.

Did you see this ?

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.

At popla it is up to the operator to prove their case. Did they supply anything in this regard ?

M1

[greglane]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

Hi there,

I don't believe we have had any evidence sent to us apart from the original evidence pack when it FIRST went to POPLA a year or so ago. There they did show the signs etc etc

But I don't think anything was ever sent on the ANPR system.

But certainly since it went to these new solicitors (Wright Hassall - certainly has been a right hassel!) they have only ever asked for evidence before the final appeal - which was at the end of May! It's taken a long time?

It really annoys me as this was a simple mistake - no intent to cheat the system or anything...a ticket was purchased but in haste of visiting a 2month old ill baby in hospital, it wasn't noticed that the car was parked in a staff only section. Surely it should have a barrier or similar - as it must get loads of people! Who reads signs when they've been to the same hospital car park tons of times when they know the rules on purchasing tickets etc!

I still feel it HAS been a problem as the signage has changed since...but that was rejected

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye PCN

I would complain to the local patient and liaison service.

Further i would complain about the popla decision too.

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 raised the issue of the ANPR and the reliability of it i would at least expect that the operator would have to prove accuracy and reliability. The assessor states

"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."

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 proof of fault is not even remotely close to evidence of a fair, reliable and working set up.

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

Yours etc

M1