Parking Eye PCN |
Parking Eye PCN |
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 23:00
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 26 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,124 |
Hi - newbie here!
As the registered keeper, a friend of mine received a parking charge notice from Parking Eye and, having been rejected by their appeals process, wanted some advice as to what they should enter in a POPLA appeal. The PCN states that the vehicle was in the car park for 14 minutes with no parking charge being made. That seems a pretty short amount of time to claim money. The ANPR images are very dark and it's impossible to see where they were taken. PE were asked for a better quality image so that my friend could determine the driver but nothing was received. Surely it must be clear that the photos are actually taken at the place where the alleged transgression took place? Probably a dumb question, but how do PE know that a ticket was not purchased if it's a pay and display car park? I guess the PCN is standard wording for Parking Eye but to my untrained eye, it's difficult to understand on what legal basis the claim is being made. Is it simply a case that as the letter states "Parking charge notice" then the claim is compensation for breach of contract? PE were asked for the exact grounds for the claim (damage for trespass, damages for breach of contract or a contractual sum) but got no explanation in reply. If the claim is for breach of contract where signage states that a ticket must be purchased to park a car, shouldn't the photo show that the car was actually parked rather than just entering and exiting the car park? Particularly as there is a chance that the driver did not leave the vehicle for the whole 14 minutes. In case the claim was for trespass, PE were asked for a breakdown of actual losses and provided no response. PE were asked for the details of the ownership of the premises. Again no response. PE were asked for a copy of the contract which shows that they have contractual authority. No response. In case the claim was for breach of contract or a contractual sum, PE were asked for photographs of the Ts and Cs displayed at the site to show that they were placed correctly and intelligible. No response. So, what points should my friend raise in their appeal to POPLA? Thanks in advance for you help. This post has been edited by mrsteapot: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 23:03 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 23:00
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 17:07
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 26 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,124 |
Probably way past that point, but I finally got round to scanning the PCN:
Does anyone else find the really poor quality ANPR images frustrating? These could have been taken anywhere! |
|
|
Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 22:54
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Are you saying that if the supply agreement does not contain any reference to the third parties act then PE can enforce their own terms and conditions at the car park? Conversely, if the clause you mention is written into the supply agreement then PE must apply the exact terms and conditions of that agreement at the car park? No, the question is whether a third party can rely on the 30 minute "free parking" clause in PE's operator agreement with the land owner. If you can argue that the 30 minute limitation therein was intended to confer a benefit on the class of persons to which the driver belonged (users of the car park), and there is no TPA 1999 clause in the operator agreement eliminating third party rights under the TPA 1999, then you could argue that you have the right to enforce the operator agreement against the party in breach of it (PE), as the vehicle was present for only 14 minutes. That right would not directly affect the contract between PE and the driver of the car, but it could effectively neutralise the other case. However, as I mentioned before, I would be surprised if the operator agreement did not include a typical TPA 1999 clause (eliminating third party rights). But there may be another way of utilising the operator agreement, which does seem to specify a 30 minute free parking period, as the signage does not. It is possible that an argument could be made, should this ever become a court case, that the operator agreement only authorised PE to operate specific parking services, so charging for parking periods shorter than 30 minutes would have been "unauthorised" by the land owner. One of the conditions of POFA 2012 is that the PPC must abide by its trade association's code of practice, which, among other things, I believe requires the PPC to operate only on land on which it is properly authorised to do business. Did PE supply any documentation confirming that the terms of the operator agreement with the land owner had been revised to eliminate the 30 minute free parking condition? --Churchmouse |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 08:31
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 26 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,124 |
Are you saying that if the supply agreement does not contain any reference to the third parties act then PE can enforce their own terms and conditions at the car park? Conversely, if the clause you mention is written into the supply agreement then PE must apply the exact terms and conditions of that agreement at the car park? No, the question is whether a third party can rely on the 30 minute "free parking" clause in PE's operator agreement with the land owner. If you can argue that the 30 minute limitation therein was intended to confer a benefit on the class of persons to which the driver belonged (users of the car park), and there is no TPA 1999 clause in the operator agreement eliminating third party rights under the TPA 1999, then you could argue that you have the right to enforce the operator agreement against the party in breach of it (PE), as the vehicle was present for only 14 minutes. That right would not directly affect the contract between PE and the driver of the car, but it could effectively neutralise the other case. However, as I mentioned before, I would be surprised if the operator agreement did not include a typical TPA 1999 clause (eliminating third party rights). But there may be another way of utilising the operator agreement, which does seem to specify a 30 minute free parking period, as the signage does not. It is possible that an argument could be made, should this ever become a court case, that the operator agreement only authorised PE to operate specific parking services, so charging for parking periods shorter than 30 minutes would have been "unauthorised" by the land owner. One of the conditions of POFA 2012 is that the PPC must abide by its trade association's code of practice, which, among other things, I believe requires the PPC to operate only on land on which it is properly authorised to do business. Did PE supply any documentation confirming that the terms of the operator agreement with the land owner had been revised to eliminate the 30 minute free parking condition? --Churchmouse In answer to your question regarding elimination of the 30 minute free parking, here's the complete section of the PDF which forms the main body of the response from PE... |
|
|
Fri, 7 Jun 2019 - 13:03
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 26 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,124 |
Hi Churchmouse.
So, I personally can't see anything in the response from PE which confirms that the terms of the operator agreement had been revised to remove the 30 minute free parking condition. Did you see anything to the contrary in the text provided above? As it's been 2 weeks since POPLA's conclusion then I guess my friend will receive a summons soon? So, we're on borrowed time! As I see it, there's three options: 1. Pay up 2. Wait for a summons 3. Take court action against PE Am I right? If we want to take action against PE, what is the procedure? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:10 |