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 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 25 Jan 2019 - 16:17
Post #21


Member


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



That mention of driver was an edit of what you had put in and what I suggested you put in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 15:29
Post #22


Member


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



This is what i have sent and hope for the best.

if i recieved the POPLA code , then will write again here and see what you guys think.

ParkingEye Limited
PO Box 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT

Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Reference number 55XXXX Vehicle registration: WRXXXXX
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and have received the above demand from you.
There is no legal requirement to identify the driver and I will not be doing so to name the driver.
There are no signs visible therefore no contract formed.
The Sign that is showing on GSV is a forbidding sign and unable to form a contract.
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
I don’t think you have standing so prove you do.
Go away or give me a POPLA code.

Yours sincerely,

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 15:40
Post #23


Member


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



Sounds good. No harm being a bit bolshy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 16:10
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Don't demand that they prove standing to you. If they do, that's a major plank of a future defence gone.

Also, go and take pictures of the signs. They will easily rebut GSV by installing more signs, while thanking you for the suggestion!


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:03
Post #25


Member


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



Hi Cabbyman,
my neigbour did not want to demand, but this is the best possible letter i could write to them without causing any issue.

lets hiope they can waive it.

About the pictures i am not in the same town, so it is not going to be possible to get pictures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Mon, 28 Jan 2019 - 17:48
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,898
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



They won't waive it. They should send a POPLA code. Start looking at recent POPLA appeals to get a feel for what you need to include when the time comes.

I could also say: It's not a great idea requesting them to 'prove' they have standing..... Leave out the comment about standing. and GSV. All you are after is a POPLA code. That's the time when you throw in the kitchen sink.


--------------------
Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail-1
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 12:52
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,212



Hi Guys,
I have received a reply from parking eye and I have attached the sign of the private car park.

What do you think guys and how do I go about it.

https://imgur.com/a/0QdUy3v

https://imgur.com/yh1yfgT

https://imgur.com/jXfuYAp

https://imgur.com/UO86fhy

https://imgur.com/EsohzSk



This post has been edited by Mikail-1: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 12:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 14:34
Post #28


Member


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



That gives yo uno furthe rinfo, so you write your POPLA appeal as already told you would need to do.

Pictures of the signs AT THE SAME time as the parking charge and WITH and WIHTOUT FLASH are needed, as youve been told
THis is to prove the signs could nto be seen NOR read
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail-1
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 16:42
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,212



This is the below I am thinking of replying to the POPLA.

What do you think Guys.

Thank you.

Dear sir,

POPLA reference number 6060389189
Parking Charge Reference number 553698/544349
Vehicle registration number xx xx xxxx

I am in receipt of a parking charge notice(PCN) from Parking Eye incurred on 12/01/2019 at 21:52:55, Deane Plaza , Bolton 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 relevant section from POFA 2012 is as follows


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 £1.50p 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 Bolton 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

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:

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.


This concludes my appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:15
Post #30


Member


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



I got as far as 1) and sighed

They mention POFA on the back of the PCN in the first post
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail-1
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:42
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,212



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 17:15) *
I got as far as 1) and sighed

They mention POFA on the back of the PCN in the first post


I can not find the POFA on the back of the PCN or is it POPLA ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 21:03
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



PROTECTION OF FREEDOM ACT

This section
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 09:36
Post #33


Member


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



OP - this means you havent actually *understood* what you copy and pasted
Thats no good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail-1
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 11:04
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,212



[quote name='Ollyfrog' date='Thu, 7 Feb 2019 - 21:03' post='1459869']
PROTECTION OF FREEDOM ACT

This section
[/quote

Ah Understood about the POFA.

I will have to look at it again the drafted letter and the driver was saying what if I just ignore and don't pay, is he/she risking it ?

I told him I can not answer this, as I don't know how the parking eye works.

This post has been edited by Mikail-1: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 11:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 11:11
Post #35


Member


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



PArking Eye take THOUSANDS of people to court every year
It's almost always the registered keeper as PE dont know who the driver is.
So the driver risks very little...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail-1
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 15:32
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,212



This is the reply I will go for, what do you thinks Guys.

I have asked them to contact the shop owner to see if they can get in touch with the Land owner to waive the ticket




08/02/2019
ParkingEye Ltd,
PO BOX 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT


Dear Sir or Madam,

Ticket number: 5536xxx/5443xxx
Vehicle registration number: xxxxxxxx
POPLA reference number 6060389xxx

I was issued with a parking ticket on [insert date] but I believe it was unfairly issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following


• There was insufficient signage
The car park in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. When i parked and i will be Honest the Driver did NOT see the signs and He/ She thought the car park belongs to the shop we visited.


• Mitigating circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was and the charge should be waived for this reason. We went to the shop for a meal and never realised it was Private car park and monitored by the Parking eye. If the driver known about it, I would on paid the car park charges. It is until today, now I know, I need to pay to use the car park.

• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.

In my case, the £60.00 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £1.50 eg if the fee is £60.00 but I only overstayed by 31 minutes. I therefore feel the amount you have asked for is excessive.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

Yours faithfully,


xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx

This post has been edited by Mikail-1: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 15:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glacier2
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 15:40
Post #37


Member


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



For starters why are you addressing this to Parking Eye? Surely you are appealing to POPLA?

Mitigating circumstances will not be considered by POPLA. GEPOL is dead since Beavis.

You must appeal on legal points without emotion.

Send that as written to POPLA and you will lose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail-1
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 17:49
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,212



Just spoke to the restaurant shop owner and he said he can not do anything, as lot of the customer got a fine from PE.

He was saying the lightning is poor, so you need to get in touch with the PE.

I have asked a work colleague to take the pictures and he will take it on Sunday and I will upload it on Monday and take it from there.

If you guys have any good draft letter to POPLA, will be much appreciated, as I tried searching through the website and also MSE website.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 11:17
Post #39


Member


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



Take photos at the same time after sunset as the original parking. Without flash and with flash to show how the signs cannot be seen.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikail-1
post Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:19
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 72
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Member No.: 102,212



He has been trying to get picture, as he does not live in the same town and he is depending on work colleague and keep forgetting.

He got the below picture, but it is sign only. I told him to get picture of the whole car park to see the lightning of the car park.


https://imgur.com/a/z5K8rXC

This is the below letter he may send or he may just pay it, as he is not sure what to do. I told him you will have to pay, as if you don't pay, then thye may take you to court, court charges and credit rating may be effected.

I was issued with a parking ticket on 12/01/2019 at 21:52:55 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I declined the company’s invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying the demand for payment for the following


• There was insufficient signage and Lightning
The car park in question has no clear signage to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally. When i drove my car to the car park entrance, it was dark and was not lighted very well. When i parked and i will be Honest the Driver did NOT see the signs and the car park was NOT very well lighted and it was too dark to see any signs clearly and this is why you need to add more lightning to the car park, as the car park can user see the signs easily. Another point the signs were not big enough and the writing was too small to read.


• Mitigating circumstances
There are mitigating circumstances to explain why the vehicle was parked where it was and the charge should be waived for this reason. We went to the shop for a meal and never realised it was Private car park and monitored by the Parking eye due to Lightning is very poor on this car park and it looks Dark, as the Land owner had not place enough lightning to make aware of the driver. If the driver known about it, I would on paid the car park charges. It is until today, now I know, I need to pay to use the car park.

• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner.

In my case, the £60.00 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £1.50 eg if the fee is £60.00 but I only overstayed by 31 minutes. I therefore feel the amount you have asked for is excessive.

The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.


Yours faithfully,

This post has been edited by Mikail-1: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 - 11:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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 - 08:02
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