PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking charge - Parking Eye, Parked up watching football
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 17:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



Hi there

So today I have a parking charge through the door - 28 days to Psy or £60 now

This was 29/11/2019 and I was Parker up watching my boy play football . The gates were open and I had originally moved the car into the car park to get a better view of the game . Eye in the sky has taken a picture of my registration and now arrived at my home just in time for Christmas

The car park is in Doncaster in car park 3 and although it’s a poor excuse I never though this was private land due to football games being played 100 yards away and 100s of cars parked around the car park watching football matches on various pitches , but only a few parked up where I was

Also I was actually parked up and never got out of the car , although they would say it’s private land

They have addressed it to myself with just the usual ref number and vehicle reg
Any advice would be great


This post has been edited by Glynnroy123: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 17:36
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 17:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 17:04
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Wrong section - I have asked for a move to private parking.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 17:10
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



Oooopppss sorry
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 18:33
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



Hi guys

So basically I have read a few posts on the forum and basically asking for an appeal help with 14 days . Obviously the need to know the person who has been in the car at the time which I shouldn’t give . I have found a template to send to them online , would this be ok .

—————-
APPEAL RE: PPC Name CHARGE ******/******,*********
CAR PARK **/**/2013, VEHICLE REG: **** ***

I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

1. Neither the parking company or their client has proved that they have planning consent to charge motorists for any alleged contravention.

2. The parking company has no contract with the landowner that permits them to levy charges on motorists up to pursuit of these charges through the courts.

3. The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards andt here was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss.
Here are the detailed appeal points.

1. No right to charge motorists for overstaying

Planning consent is required for car parks and have conditions that grant permission as the car park provides a service to the community. To bring in time limits, charges and ANPR cameras, planning consent is required for this variation. I have no evidence that planning consent was obtained for this change and I put the parking company to strict proof to provide evidence that there is planning consent to cover the current parking conditions and chargeable regime in this car park.

Additional paragraph where the land is not owned by the client (e.g. ALDI land where they are not the landowner)
"I note that the parking company has not been engaged by the landowner, but by a lessee or tenant of the land. I require proof from the actual landowner that their contract with the lessee/tenant gives authority for any form of parking restrictions or charges to be brought in. (There are VAT implications when a car park is a revenue generating business that may impact upon a landowner and that is why it needs to be established that they need to have granted permission in their lease.")
2. No valid contract with landowner

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory
is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

3. 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. The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height 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.

4. The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.
The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.
It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies


I’ve also found this


Pre-exising contract obligations and novation agreements (transfer of obligations): This is particularly relevant where free parking is allowed. Where a landowner previously allowed drivers to park on their land without any charges imposed i.e. before the parking company engaged, then the parking company cannot deny the driver to park under previous the landowners previous obligations to the driver. Any new terms must be given in advance by parking company and landowner and agreed by the driver. The ambiguous wording of car parking signs and their positioning does not make these new terms clear. The act of parking alone cannot be deemed acceptance of these new terms as this was an action previously carried by the driver before the engagement of the PPC.

Planning consent for ANPR cameras is also required where used - this can be requested in addition to planning consent for the relevant parking times.

Legal obligations for tax: Request evidence that full automony to recover parking charges is given to the parking company and that they are paying business rates for the relevant parking site in question.

Landowners permission from lenders/insurance companies to allow third party operation of car parks. - All large retailers/organisations borrow money to expand businesses which not only has VAT implications but also have lucrative tax concessions and rebates available. However, just as any homeowner requires the consent of mortgage lender to rent out a property, there are conditions imposed by lenders to businesses and many landowners could be in breach of lending criteria and contravening their public liability insurance by assigning third party agreements.

—-

Would it also be worth adding the following

* It's a first offence within that council's boundaries. Councils say this in itself is not a valid reason to waive the charge, but it's worth a go.
* You are a law-abiding citizen, made an honest mistake and are now fully aware of the parking restrictions. Again, councils don't have to refund you on that basis but there's no harm in asking.

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 20:09
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



Any give me some advice - am I on the right track

Thankyou
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 20:41
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



That's an ancient appeal and they will reject anything you say.

Does the reverse mention the 'Protection of Freedoms Act'?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 20:43
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



Yes it does
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 21:02
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Then they can pursue you, regardless whether they know the driver or not.

You state the signage wasn't compliant?

GPEOL is dead.

Are you prepared to go to court?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 21:18
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



So I’m guessing I’m all out and should just pay it then
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 21:48
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Glynnroy123 @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 21:18) *
So I’m guessing I’m all out and should just pay it then

We don't usually advise paying as that's your decision. But if you don't want to go to court for around £200 then paying the discounted amount can be an option.

It doesn't mean a win is guaranteed for them though.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 22:07
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE (Glynnroy123 @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 21:43) *
Yes it does

Could you tell us, verbatim, exactly what it says? Or better still, upload page 2.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 22:37
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



Uploading now

This post has been edited by Glynnroy123: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 23:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 23:15
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



https://imgshare.io/image/e426cd8f-7ffb-400...4ee1f75f8.qmWGZ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Fri, 6 Dec 2019 - 12:59
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



Any more advice please
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glynnroy123
post Fri, 6 Dec 2019 - 17:16
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,271



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 20:41) *
That's an ancient appeal and they will reject anything you say.

Does the reverse mention the 'Protection of Freedoms Act'?


Would it be worth sending them a different letter as an appeal , been looking for ages to find a decent one but unsure , any advice would be helpful
Thankyou
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bobthesod
post Sat, 7 Dec 2019 - 22:26
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Aug 2017
Member No.: 93,755



Are there any parking notices, that you may have passed entering the site, or on the site itself?. If so pictures could be helpful
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 8 Dec 2019 - 07:07
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Parking eye will reject ANY appeal, so right now just appeal on the basis that the signage was inadequate and failed to form a contract, literally 2 lines, meantime start compiling a proper POPLA appeal.starting with signage, are there obvious entry signs and show us a photo plus a photo of signs onsite so we can read the alleged contract.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:38
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here