PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PARKING CHARGE NOTICE- PARKING EYE, PRIVATE CAR PARK TICKET.
Mikail
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 23 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,566



Hi All,
My neighbour got a PARKING CHARGE NOTICE from PARKING EYE, she is a new driver and she was not familiar with the private car park and she said she did not see the PAY and DISPLAY signs. If she did she would of paid the parking charges.

They thought the car park belong to the restaurant , where they parked rear of the restaurant, until today they receive the letter and this is when she found out.

What are her chances of appeal ?

She was going to write , as a new driver and it was dark and she did not see the signs and thought it was car park belong to the restaurant.

https://imgur.com/W9N4RFI

https://imgur.com/fXGR12l

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Deane+R...33;4d-2.4428152

This post has been edited by Mikail: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 10:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:03
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



1) Were the signs lit? Yes or No

If they were not lit, then no chance they can be seen - as a new user to the car park - and they have breached the BPA Code of Practice which requires that signs can be seen during the hours of parking control operation.

Appeal on that basis, if true, and get PHOTOS showing the fact they are not lit - meaning NO FLASH and WITH FLASH to show its the same area.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ReubenTK
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:18
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 29 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,200



Reg can be seen in first image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HappyHarry
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:53
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 162
Joined: 14 Dec 2018
From: Sussex
Member No.: 101,446



And identifying info is in the small print on the parking ticket. Take your pictures off Mikail, cover up all info with the car reg and other personal info.

This post has been edited by HappyHarry: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:54


--------------------
“Nobody leaves their house because they want to go and do some parking; parking is simply a means to an end, and it should be as easy as possible.” Rishi Sunak, MP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 19:23
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Where was the car actually parked? The only sign I can read is "Private Land No Parking Clamping in Operation. I can see the back of another, unlit, sign.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 19:44
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



A motorist isn't required to check ALL the signs in a car park to see if they have different information

If the land-owner put up a different sign, that's ParkingEye's problem

She was going to write , as a new driver the registered keeper and it was dark and she the driver did not see the signs and thought it was car park belong to the restaurant

Never tell a parking company who was driving

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 10:52
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 23 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,566



Hi
Remove the reg and uploaded the form again.

I asked the driver and they were saying it was dark and could not see the signs or the pay nad display, as you can see from the image on the picture.

I will have to ask him to get pictures of the parking area with flash and NO flash.

This has been recently changed and given the control to parking eye, so it may not be updated on the Google maps. this is what i have been told by the local resident.

i will write as the Registered Keeper and the Driver.

I will write a letter and upload it here for your review.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 11:02
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



No. the DRIVER never responds.

The registered KEEPER gets the letters so they respond. They respond as the KEEPER. The driver is entirely quiet and you never give away their identity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 11:38
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



At no point, in any of this appeals process, does the driver do ANYTHING AT ALL

Nothing
If you dont understand why, you havent done enough reading around yet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 16:14
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 23 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,566



This is the letter i am thinking of sending it to the Parking eye.

What do you think guys.

Thursday 24th January 2019



ParkingEye Limited
PO Box 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT

Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Reference number 553698 Vehicle registration: XXX XXX
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from you.
I dispute owing you any amount and deny all liability in this matter. Please accept this letter as a formal appeal under your appeals process.
The basis of my appeal is:
1. The amount you have claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of any loss to either Parking Eye or the car park landowner.
2. The signs in your car park fail to comply with your Accredited Trade Association’s Code of Practice
3. No contract was formed with the driver due to the fact that your signs were was not sufficiently brought to the attention of the driver. It was too dark and the visibility was poor to see the signs or the pay and display machine
4. ParkingEye is not the landowner and therefore Parking Eye does not have the right to enter into a contract with a driver nor does Parking Eye have the right to bring a claim for trespass.

Please confirm in writing whether you accept my appeal and withdraw your demand. If you reject my appeal, please provide the following particulars:
1) The basis of your charge (i.e. contract breach, trespass or contractual fee).
• If you are alleging breach of contract, I require a breakdown of the liquidated damages you claim were suffered, and by whom, and how each particular loss arose.
• If you are alleging trespass please enclose evidence of the alleged perpetrator and proof of the liquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum.
• If you alleging a “contractual fee” I request a VAT invoice from you and ask you to explain the daily rate for parking and service provided for that fee.
2) Please also advise the amount of money you would have recieved from the driver of my vehicle should the alleged contract have been met to your satisfaction.
3) Please advise the name and address of the landowner.
4) Please provide a POPLA code that allows me to appeal to POPLA.

If ParkingEye rejects my appeal: please do not contact me again with more demands as I deny owing Parking Eye any money and deny that any driver of my vehicle has entered into a contract with you. Any legal action you initiate against me will be defended.
Yours sincerely,

xxx xxxx

This post has been edited by Mikail: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 16:15
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 16:17
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



No. GPEOL is dead since 2016 that must be a very old source you found.

This is just an appeal which PE WILL reject. (no money in allowing appeals.) It's purely to get a POPLA code.

1. Im the keeper not the driver. I'm not going to name the driver.

2. There are no signs visible therefore no contract formed

3. I dont think you have standing so prove you do.

4. Go away or give me a POPLA code.

You can then work on beating them at POPLA when the deny your appeal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 16:21
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You must msut msut not dig up yeasr old threads
Nothing older than 2018.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 18:27
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Could you please say where the car was parked. Mark it on the GSV picture you posted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 18:27
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 23 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,566



Hi Guys,
I have jsut amended the letter by following the points mentioned by Bearclaw

ParkingEye Limited
PO Box 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Reference number 553698 Vehicle registration: XXX XXXX
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from you.
I am not going to name the driver.
There are no signs visible therefore no contract formed. It was too dark and the visibility was poor to see the signs or the pay and display machine
I don’t think you have standing so prove you do.
Go away or give me a POPLA code.
Yours sincerely,

xxx xxxx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 19:00
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



There is no legal requirement to identify the driver and I will not be doing so.

Don't mention the P&D machine

The sign that is showing on GSV is a forbidding sign and unable to form a contract.

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 19:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 19:49
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



QUOTE (Mikail @ Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 18:27) *
Hi Guys,
I have jsut amended the letter by following the points mentioned by Bearclaw

ParkingEye Limited
PO Box 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Reference number 553698 Vehicle registration: XXX XXXX
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from you.
I am not going to name the driver.
There are no signs visible therefore no contract formed. It was too dark and the visibility was poor to see the signs or the pay and display machine
I don’t think you have standing so prove you do.
Go away or give me a POPLA code.
Yours sincerely,

xxx xxxx



Dont send that.... its amateurish bolshy, looks far too confrontational

That wasnt a letter I gave you it was a series of pointers as to what to put in YOUR letter - cover that, nothing else. You need to get out of your thread, read up on some others and then come back with a more reasoned and substantive letter. Search for Ostell and look at his templates for an idea on the language needed...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 20:52
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



It may be bolshy, but it won't do any harm as they will always reject and issue a POPLA code. That is the object of the exercise, get the code.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail
post Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 15:57
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 23 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,566



Hi Bearclaw,
i could not find the Template from the post of Ostell.

the below 2 links and came across the below from one of the post.

i will Not mention the Pay and Display and will not mention the driver.

i will ask Ostell to see if he can send me the template


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1455229

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...06453&st=40



Dear sir,

POPLA reference number *********
Parking Charge Reference number ********
Vehicle registration number ******

I am in receipt of a parking charge notice(PCN) from Parking Eye incurred on **/**/**** at **.**, Pleasure Land, Morecambe car park which I believe was incorrectly issued.

I am appealing this parking charge on the following grounds.

1) Keeper Liability

a)The PCN/NTK received from Parking Eye fails to quote or make any reference to POFA 2012

The event occurred on ****** and as can be seen in the attachment, the PCN was issued on ******(27 days after the event) and was not received until ******(33 days after the event)

This is not in compliance with POFA which is clear that NTK should be given within 14 days after the day following the event(the event being day 0 for this purpose)

|The relevant section from POFA 2012 is as follows

"9(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 to keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

9(5) The relevant period for the sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended."

In my initial appeal to Parking Eye this serving date was made clear to them and was unchallenged.

There is no doubt that Parking Eye have acted in non compliance with POFA. I therefore contend that the company are requesting payment from the driver only and may pursue payment from the driver only.
As keeper of the vehicle, I have declined, as is my right to do so, the company's invitation to name the driver at the time. As Parking Eye have neither named or provided any evidence as to who the driver
was at the time I submit that I am not liable to any charge

b) This is a pay and display car park and the NTK has to set out the position clearly in terms of describing "parking charges due" which remained unpaid as to the day before the date of issue of the PCN. Due to
this time line stated in schedule 4 the parking charges can only be a tariff the driver should have paid because no higher sum was due before the PCN was even printed.

On the NTK it only states that the car was in the car park for a certain amount of time and that the contravention was an overstay or failure to pay.

This does not create any certainty of terms and leaves a keeper to wonder what the hourly rate tariff even was and whether the driver paid nothing, too little, paid only for half an hour or an hour, paid in full
but typed in the car registration wrongly or some other event.
The operator has the technology to record car registrations to collect and record payments and to take photographs of cars entering and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able, and
indeed required under POFA to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the parking charges arose and the amount of parking charges(tariff) as at the day before the PCN was issued.

These are the omissions.

"9(2) The notice must-
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 means by which the requirement was brought to the
attention of the driver) and other facts that made them payable.
d) Specify the total amount of these parking charges that remain unpaid"

c) In a P&D car park the contract is only established at the time of payment therefore the period of stay described on the PCN is not the period required under POFA 2012 meaning the NTK fails further in its
non compliance.

2) Unclear signage and P&D instruction. No contract formed.

There is no signage at the entrance to indicate ANPR cameras are being used to record entry times, therefore the driver is quite unaware that the arrival time is the start of the parking contract with Parking
Eye as claimed by them.

Where there is no visible entrance signage to the contrary, the invitation(licence) to enter the car park is given by the land owner not Parking Eye.

The main car park signage(in minute print) indicates only that ANPR gathered data is used for management purposes.

There is no clear signage around the payment machine indicating to the motorist what the driver is paying for. According to Parking Eye this is stat time yet the machine states parking tariff indicating parked
up time. The machine instructions indicate to the driver at busy times should park up before purchasing a ticket. This again indicates the contracted period of time starts at the time of the purchase of the ticket

It is also apparent that the tiny lettering on the P&D machine is very difficult to read and enter VRN's correctly, particularly if a vehicle occupant suffers from reduced vision or under bad light conditions. The
machine doesn't make clear that an incorrect entry will result in a PCN for £100

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 covers this

"63) Contract terms which may or must be considered unfair.
(6) A term of a consumer contract must be regarded as unfair if it has the effect that the consumer bears the burden of proof with respect to compliance by a distance supplier or intermediary with an
obligation under any enactment or rule implementing the Distance Marketing Directive"

The technology Parking Eye uses knows the VRN of each vehicle on site yet allows the incorrect entry of vehicle details into the P&D machine and takes payment.

I contend that this confusion in the offer makes the terms unfair and contrary to The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which states

"A term which has the object or the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has been bound by it where no price or method of determining the price is agreed
when the consumer becomes bound"

I also argue that the signage fails on Transparency where the act states-

"Where a term in a consumer contract notice has different meanings the one most favourable to the consumer will prevail"

"The courts are under a duty to consider the fairness of a term in a consumer contract whether or not a party has raised the issue"

After an hours parking it is therefore entirely possible that a £0.90p parking charge becomes a £100 penalty depending on times calculated by Parking Eye but not understood or clearly agreed by the driver.

Given the evident unclear signage and lack of transparency, it is my contention that no valid contract was entered into.


3) No standing authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.

The operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title
Parking Eye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial sit agent for the true landowner has no automatic
standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Parking Eye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an
un-redacted contemporaneous copy of a contract between Parking Eye and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other landowner, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has
authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye. A witness statement is insufficient as it will not convey the instructions of the landowner as to how the parking management company is allowed to proceed
in the recovery of parking charges.

4)Simple Financial Contract, unlike Beavis

Parking Eye argue that the supreme court judgement regarding Mr Beavis is conclusive in all parking contracts. I contend that this is not the case, a parking payment was made and a ticket issued. The £100
parking charge should be considered a penalty. Therefore, it is argued that this charge (£100) is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff. If Parking Eye believe that inadequate payment was made
(which their PCN fails to make clear and is denied by the driver) their demand should be for any unpaid tariff as that would be their only loss. £100 is clearly not a genuine pre estimate of their loss and is
clearly extravagant and unconscionable compared to the unpaid tariff. The offer to reduce the payment to £60 if paid within the first 14 days further suggests that this is an arbitrary penalty sum rather than
a pre estimate of their loss, as any loss cannot possibly vary depending on when the charge is paid. If Parking eye believes their charge is a genuine pre estimate of their loss it is demanded that they produce
a detailed and itemised breakdown of how this has been calculated.

What the Appeal Court said in Parking Eye v Beavis:

"When the court is considering an ordinary financial or commercial contract, then it is understandable that the law, which lays down its own rules as to compensation due from a contract breaker to the innocent
party, should prohibit terms which require the payment of a compensation going far beyond that which the law allows in the absence of any contract provision governing this outcome."


The classic and simple case is that referred to by Tindal CJ in Kemble v Farren (1829) 6 Bing 141 and 148:

"But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the non payment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered a penalty, appears to be a contradiction
in terms, the case being precisely that in which courts of equity have always relieved, and against which courts of law have, in modern times endeavoured to relieve by directing juries to assess the real
damages sustained by the breach of agreement"

In an earlier judgement Parking Eye v Cargius in Wrexham County Court on 5th December 2014 District Deputy Judge Mahy outlined how a quite different reasoning is needed when dealing with pay and
display car parks and why a £100 charge is wholly disproportionate to actual loss suffered by Parking Eye and defining this charge clearly as a penalty.


5) Legality of signage at this site

A search of the Lancaster City Council planning department website indicates that no advertisement consent application(as required by The Town and Country Planning(Control of Advertisements)(England)
Regulations 2007) has been made for signage at this site.
I put Parking Eye to strict proof that it has the necessary permissions in place for signage at this site as would be required by British Parking Association Code of Practice No: 2.4

This concludes my appeal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 16:01
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,695
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 1,131



Have you already got a POPLA code?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail
post Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 16:04
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 23 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,566



No , this is going to be my first letter to the parking eye


I think this might be it, which bearclaw is referring to Ostell letter, where i will need to tweak it to my neighbours offence.



Here is the first draft of the POPLA appeal I am suggesting that my friends send. Not all my own work and apologies to those I cribbed from.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POPLA CODE xxxxxxxxxx
As registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number xxxx xxxx, I wish to appeal against the parking charge issued by Parking Eye Ltd on the following grounds:
1. No loss as the parking fee was paid
2. Failed to conform to the requirements of POFA.
3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.
4. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
5. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
To expand on these points:
1. No loss as the parking fee was paid for the duration of the stay.
1.1. I enclose a signed statement from one of the passengers in the car showing that she paid for the parking, refuting Parking Eyes allegation that no payment was made.
1.2. I require Parking Eye to produce an un-redacted and unedited list of the payments made using the equipment on this site on the date of the alleged offence, to include times and vehicle registration numbers.
1.3. I also require, for this purpose, a list that must be in Parking Eye’s possession of the VRN’s entered into their system that do not have a corresponding ANPR entry.
2. Failed to conform to the requirements of POFA
2.1. The alleged failure is given in the Notice to Keeper as:
“By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted , in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the Parking charge is now payable to Parking Eye Ltd (as creditor)”
2.2. POFA 2012 Schedule 5 Paragraph 7 (2) states:
(b) inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;
© inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);

2.3. Parking Eye have failed to both specify the charges required and the total amount of the alleged unpaid parking charge.
2.4. The keeper is therefore unable to determine the nature of the alleged breach.

3. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
3.1. The Parking Charge Notice received makes no mention of VAT and therefore cannot be considered a charge for services rendered. The charge, therefore, can only be construed to be a penalty, which is not allowed, or as claim for liquidated damages.
3.2. The charge of £100 for the alleged non-payment is extravagant and unconscionable.
3.3. The charge for the alleged non-payment is a punitive penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
3.4. I require Parking Eye to supply details of the alleged losses they are attempting to recover that flow directly from the event.
3.4.1. Heads of cost such as normal operational costs and tax-deductible back office functions, debt collection, costs in relation to processing of appeals when only a very small percentage of motorists actually appeal as far as POPLA etc. cannot possibly flow as a direct consequence of this parking event.
3.4.2. Parking Eye v Beavis does not apply as this car park is Pay and Display without time limits whereas the car park referenced in the case was a free car park with time limits.
3.4.3. The Parking Eye v Beavis appeal to the Supreme Court has been heard but the judgment has not yet been received and therefore that case cannot be used as a precedent.
4. Lack of Proprietary Interest & non-compliant Contract with Landowner
4.1. Parking Eye state in their Notice to Keeper that they merely managing the site, but do not name the principal.
4.2. I put Parking Eye Ltd to strict proof that they have a relevant, contemporaneous contract with the landowner that entitles them to pursue these charges, in the courts if necessary, in their own name as creditor.
4.3. Further, I require Parking Eye Ltd to produce a full contemporaneous, un-redacted copy of their agreement with the landowner to confirm (or otherwise) that they had the necessary legal standing to offer parking and pursue charges in their own name at the time of the alleged parking event.
4.4. A signed Witness Statement will not be satisfactory proof.
4.5. The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) contains the following:
Ž Written authorisation of the landowner
Ž If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.
5. Non-Compliant Signage, Unclear and Inadequate.
5.1. Due to the position of signage, the lack of signage frequency and the barely legible size of the small print, the signs and any core parking terms Parking Eye Ltd are relying upon are difficult for a driver to read, especially entering the very narrow entrance from a very busy road.
5.2. The appellant paid for parking, complied with such terms as could be discerned in the conditions.
5.3. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts (not implied consent) and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.
5.4. Based on the signage in this car park, Parking Eye Ltd has failed to meet these requirements. I request that POPLA check Parking Eye Limited evidence and signage positions/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements.
5.5. There is no contract between Parking Eye Ltd and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it would be unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc., were not satisfied.

Yours faithfully,


Signed XXXXXXXXX


This post has been edited by Mikail: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 16:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:41
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