PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking Eye Didsbury
Christian_d
post Sat, 8 Jul 2017 - 09:45
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



Friend has a ticket and the deadline to appeal is looming. Is it best with a soft appeal or should I formulate a proper one and post on here for critique first?

For some reason tinypic is having issues so I can only display the link to the ticket instead.

Its our friends at Parking Eye

Thanks

https://ibb.co/bKyYHv



This post has been edited by Christian_d: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 - 09:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Sat, 8 Jul 2017 - 09:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Flobber
post Sat, 8 Jul 2017 - 10:00
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 97
Joined: 1 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,182



Have you searched for other Aldi threads here? box in top right of screen.

Did you friend spend at the Aldi in question on the day? Usually PE will back down if it is proved that an occupant of the vehicle has spent over a certain ammount in store on the day (£30 i believe). Get you friend to contact Aldi with the pcn and receipts/bank or credit card transaction redacted but showing the purchases.

Never identify the driver as this looks like a non pofa PCN, a template appeal from MSE might be enough, others will be better to advise of any additions.


--------------------
Flobber 1-0 Parking Eye
Flobber 1-0 One Parking Solutions
Flobber 1-0 Euro Car Parks

Flobber 1-0 TfL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Sat, 15 Jul 2017 - 23:16
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



Thanks,

he didn't spend at Aldi. We were pushed for time so I cobbled an appeal together. Here it is.

I am the registered keeper of vehicle ***** and which is subject to a PCN NUMBER **********9 ticketed on 8/6/17

I wish to appeal against the PCN on the following grounds.

No Contract Agreed - The signage is poor and therefore no contract could be asserted between Parking Eye and the driver. I have photographic proof of this and will supply these to POPLA if necessary.

BPA CODE OF PRACTICE BREACH - (part 21) ANPR
I would need to see evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR). I require you to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and show proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code.

PROPRIETORY INTEREST
CONTRACT WITH THE LANDOWNER - NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE BPA CODE OF PRACTICE AND NO LEGAL STATUS TO OFFER PARKING OR ENFORCE TICKETS

You do not own this car park and are acting merely as agents for the owner/occupier.

To enforce through the courts in your own name, you would need to prove that you have interest or assignment of title of the land in question. I do not believe that you have the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park. You may at some point need to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and check that it specifically enables you to pursue parking charges in the courts, and whether that contract is compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.

I will check whether or not you have adhered to the legislation in the Protection of Freedoms Act at a later date. At this point you have three options available to you:

• Contact the driver directly
• Issue me with a usable POPLA Code.
• Cancel your PCN
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 15:01
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



Here's their reply.... They have included a POPLA ref Number too!

Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on ** June
2017 at **:**, at ALDI Didsbury car park.

We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This site is a maximum stay
car park, as per the terms and conditions as detailed on the signage. Your appeal has
been rejected on the basis that the maximum time allowed was exceeded.

Please be advised:
 There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists
who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved
Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed.
See also www.popla.co.uk

 As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14
days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your
appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in
settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount. If you
have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to
the full amount and you will be liable to pay this increase.
 By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services
(www.ombudsman-services.org/) provides an alternative dispute resolution
service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not
chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such
should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
A payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting
www.parkingeye.co.uk or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye, PO Box


Is there not an option to insist on the ombudsman service in order to show the court that they've been unreasonable?

If POPLA did rule in their favour....I think that I could convince him to let them take it all the way.

This post has been edited by Christian_d: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 15:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 21 Jul 2017 - 00:03
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,210
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Rejection was expected, so get cracking on appeal 😊
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Tue, 8 Aug 2017 - 21:47
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



I've left it very late but here's a draft. Being sent tomorrow. Quick pointers welcome please. Thanks

Your Address Here

POPLA APPEAL NUMBER: PUT NUMBER HERE

Please find herewith my appeal against this Parking Charge Notice.

I wish to appeal on the following grounds:

1. Lack of standing/authority from landowner
2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.


1. No standing to make contracts with drivers

I do not believe that Parking Eye have any title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.

BPA CoP paragraphs 7.1 & 7.2 dictate some of the required contract wording. I put Parking Eye to strict proof of the contract terms with the actual landowner (not a lessee or agent). Parking Eye have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue PCNs in the courts in their own name nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and appear to have a bare licence to put signs up and issue charge notices to vehicles that have been on site, merely acting as agents. No evidence has been supplied thus far to lawfully show that Parking Eye are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

I require Parking Eye to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I’d like to put then to proof that they are compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice. I believe that this contract will not allow them to issue proceedings to claim a sum for alleged contraventions in this car park. In order to refute this it should not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner). It must not also be signed by a non-landholder such as an acting agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

The reason that the contract cannot merely be signed by a lessee, occupier or managing agent is found in the case of Devere Parking Services v Mr X, claim number A3QZ5517at Bournemouth on 3/4/2014, where DJ Williams decided the claim must fail despite a witness statement from an agent/occupier. This was because the contract was not in the name of the landowner. The occupier/agent could theoretically have permission to sign the contract, but even if they did, they would have to sign 'on behalf of' the landowner, not themselves. So I contend that Parking Eye only have a contract with a managing agent or lessee and so this is not sufficient to prove the actual landowner has authorised their operation. In a case in September 2014 (about Highview Parking) the Assessor concluded 'I am unable to determine who the landowner is and so cannot find that the operator has the authority of the landowner for their activities. Therefore I cannot find that the charge notice is valid.'

2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
Please refer to my video evidence that it’s possible to park in this location without any signs being clearly visible to read. therefore no contract had been entered into. This recording is likely to have been sent by separate cover, clearly stating my POPLA number in the subject line.

As stated in the BPA code 18.1 “You must use signs to make it easy...to find out what your terms and conditions are.”BPA code 18.2 states “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this.”
I have been to the site and there is no such sign as per the above codes of practice. Please see proof of this by referring to image number 8. Image number 8 was taken on the access road itself. Image 9 is another demonstration of no such sign being visible.
The sign you will see in photo number 1 is the first such sign. My points re this sign are covered in the following paragraph but this sign is not at the entrance to the car park, it’s in the car park itself. Please see below.
Please refer to photo number 1 in my evidence. The car was parked 2 spaces behind the black Volvo in the photo. Apart from a 1ft x 1ft small white “P” sign on the entrance road this is the first sign that one would drive past. It would be impossible, whilst driving around a right hand turn, whilst checking a public crossing place to even notice this sign, let alone read it’s contents. How could Parking Eye convey and offer and acceptance of a contract by siting this sign directly on a right hand turn whilst drivers are negotiating the hazards in this photo?
Photo number 2 is the drivers view from exactly where the car was parked. There are no signs in this location and proof is provided in photo’s 3 & 4.
As you will see in photo 5, the nearest sign located (in the parking space) to my car is more than 15 metres away and is obscured by foliage. It is my belief that a driver parking in this car parking space could not even be expected to see this sign, let alone read it’s contents.

BPA code 18.3 states “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

The car park entrance is in a location where traffic is coming from three different sides, entering and exiting the car park. The driver’s attention is therefore focused on the traffic, not to a parking sign immediately at a significant curvature in the road where you are least likely to look due to the position of the other moving vehicles around you.

Similarly there are multiple areas of the car park where in all likelihood, once a driver misses the first sign (picture 1) its perfectly possible that a driver could park a car, leave the vehicle and enter one of the premises onsite (or even leave site) without having seen a sign, therefore no contract can be formed (even although Parking Eye are not in a position to do so - Point 1 above).

Due to the above points, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

Your sincerely

Mr
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 23:23
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



Anyone know how I can submit a 14mb file to popla please?.

Their info@ email address is returning it telling me its too large.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 1 Sep 2017 - 23:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You can't send a file now, after your POPLA appeal was in 3 weeks ago.

Can't add more evidence or a long spiel of comments/photos, not after appealing already.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Sun, 3 Sep 2017 - 16:17
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 2 Sep 2017 - 00:29) *
You can't send a file now, after your POPLA appeal was in 3 weeks ago.

Can't add more evidence or a long spiel of comments/photos, not after appealing already.


It was my friends appeal so I made him go online to do it himself. He reckons he's sent the file via their portal when he first appealed. There's a reference to the video he took contained in his original appeal.

I simply want to make sure that POPLA do indeed have the video evidence.

Can he call them to check maybe?

Thanks

This post has been edited by Christian_d: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 - 16:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 3 Sep 2017 - 17:42
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Yes, he can, but at this stage if they do not have it, POPLA will no doubt say is too late to add it.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 - 17:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 16:35
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameLouise Dack
Assessor summary of operator case
On 8 June 2017, vehicle ##### was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking for longer than the maximum stay time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. There is a lack of standing/authority from landowner. 1a.The appellant states that the operator is not contracted not to issue tickets to first time offenders. 2. The car park contains unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers. 3. The signs in the car park do not state what they are using the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) data for.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’2 Hours max stay…Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of £70…Parking limited to 2 hours.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum stay time.

The appellant states that there is a lack of standing or authority from landowner to issue PCNs on site. Within the operators case file they have provided a copy of written authorisation from the landowner. Having reviewed this I am satisfied it meets the requirements as laid out with Section 7 of the British Parking Associations Code of Practice and as such, I am satisfied the operator has authorisation from the landowner to operate on the land.

The appellant states that the operator is not contracted not to issue tickets to first time offenders. In some instances, landowner contracts can contain a secret cancellation clause. This clause can reserve the right for companies to cancel charges for legitimate customers. Whether such a clause exists or not does not prevent the motorist from parking according to the terms and conditions and does not affect the contract between the parking operator and the motorist. Even if such a clause existed and a motorist was aware that such a clause existed, it would not affect the agreement between the motorist and the operator.

The appellant states that the car park contains unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers. I acknowledge the photographic and video evidence provided by the appellant of the signage on site, however within the video I can see three signs available within the short clip. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states ‘’In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start.’’ The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. On looking at the evidence provided, I am satisfied that these terms have been displayed clearly and sufficiently. In addition, the operator has provided a site map providing information on the location of the signage and I am satisfied that the car park contains and adequate amount of signage.

The appellant says that the signs in the car park do not state what they are using the ANPR data for. I note the appellant’s comments however, I can see from the photographic evidence of the signage that there is an ANPR icon on every sign. Furthermore, this also states that the car park is monitored by ANPR systems. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 19:00 and leaving at 21:27 after completing a parking session of two hours and 27 minutes, whereas the maximum stay time on the car park is two hours. It is the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the available signage on site and ensure that their parking complies with the applicable terms and conditions before leaving their vehicle unattended on site. In this instance, the appellant has parked on site for longer than the maximum stay time and as a result they have breached the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 09:01
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



So I guess the next step is to either tell him to pay it or wait for court docs?

I'm prepared to help him and attend court with him if necessary. I'm a little concerned though that it's going to be quite time consuming and of course my knowledge is limited.

I don't suppose anyone has any idea on the likelihood of court docs appearing if he simply doesn't pay?

Thanks

This post has been edited by Christian_d: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 09:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 09:08
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,936
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



I'd await a LBCCC at least. We do not believe Aldi contracts allow court claims.


--------------------
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

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
Christian_d
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 09:54
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 10:08) *
I'd await a LBCCC at least. We do not believe Aldi contracts allow court claims.


Ok I'll tell him, thanks.

Will Parking Eye still send an LBCCC even if they are unlikely to follow it through?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 10:03
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,210
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I believe they pass it to Equita (sister company debt collector, NO POWERS at all) instead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christian_d
post Fri, 15 Sep 2017 - 22:37
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 13 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,484



Ok thanks. Loud and clear.

I'll let you know if he gets some scary mail, I'll take a copy and then pop it on here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 01:16
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,210
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



We don't care about debt collectors. At all

LBCCC or court claim form.
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, 22nd February 2018 - 01:12
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.