Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Parking Eye PCN Sidcup Leisure centre ANPR
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Mike_S
Hi all,

We have received a PCN from PE for my wife's car where it was registered by the ANPR in Sidcup leisure centre as having recorded a stay of 2hr 19mins.
I understand that the car park is a pay and display requiring the user to input their registration details. It doesn't mention anywhere on the PCN how much the permitted stay was exceeded but I think the usual stay paid for is 2hrs.
Here is a copy of the PCN received:





Unfortunately I haven't had any opportunity to visit the site to review the state of their signage as part of the dispute.
I'm going to send a dispute via PE's online submission form. Should I hold off until day 26 (as suggested in the sticky section for challenges to UKPC) or does timing not really matter ?
While I know they will reject any dispute sent, I was going to use the following template on behalf of my wife will this suffice?:



Re: Parking Charge Reference number xxxxxxx Vehicle registration: xxxxxxxx

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. 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.

3. 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 received 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,

<the registered keeper’s name>



I will also be sending a complaint to the retailer - is it better to send a formal letter rather than using their online contact form which has a complaints option ?

thanks in advance
Mike
Dave65
Do I gather that this is a postal PCN?
No Windscreen ticket?
What date did you receive the PCN?

Yes, I cannot see a reason given for the issue of the PCN.

Did "the driver" shop at the retail centre.
If so best to complain to a Manager verbally first.
Mike_S
QUOTE (Dave65 @ Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 11:34) *
Do I gather that this is a postal PCN? Correct

No Windscreen ticket? Correct

What date did you receive the PCN? Around 5th/6th Mar I believe

Yes, I cannot see a reason given for the issue of the PCN.

Did "the driver" shop at the retail centre. Yes. Went for a class at the gym and stayed for a coffee afterwards

If so best to complain to a Manager verbally first. I'll have to get her to go down to do that then

ostell
They have given the reason as not paying or staying longer than permitted, they don't seem to be able to make up their mind.

9 (2) (e) has been stated incorrectly, similarly 9 (2) (f)
There is no period of parking specified. Time between cameras is not parking.

Redivi
It can also mean that the driver did pay but didn't enter the registration number

Genuine pre-estimate of loss is guaranteed appeal loser
The Supreme Court decided that
ostell
So why don't they say that the driver didn't pay?

They either paid but stayed too long
or
They didn't pay at all.
Mike_S
Sorry folks. I’m beginning to lose track a bit.
So should I drop the pre estimate of loss request and mention ostell’s points re 9(2) e & f ?
The pic in and out points not being duration of parking are definitely worth stating.
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 12:27) *
Genuine pre-estimate of loss is guaranteed appeal loser
The Supreme Court decided that

Not for pay-per-hour car parks, they didn't. The Court of Appeal in the Beavis case made it quite clear that charging a whopping amount due to lack of payment of a very small amount (another hour's parking) would not fly.
Redivi
POPLA doesn't make that distinction

ParkingEye also goes to a lot of effort in its replies to court defences to argue that the Supreme Court judgment includes pay car parks

We've seen a lot of judges ignoring that Beavis included conditions and isn't a magic bullet

I would include the GPEOL but make clear that Beavis excluded pay car parks
Yes; say which parts of POFA have not been met
I would also include 9(2)© that ParkingEye fails to state what they believe the driver did wrong and leaves the registered keeper to guess

Mike_S
Is this when sending the “appeal” to PE, or when they reject and I’m having send my appeal to POPLA?
Redivi
Use all the points in the first appeal

ParkingEye often objects when motorists include appeal points at POPLA that weren't mentioned in the first appeal

Some assessors go out of their way to reject appeals, even inventing reasons that ParkingEye hasn't thought of
No point giving them the excuse to regard you as unreasonable and find an excuse

Mike_S
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 24 Mar 2018 - 19:28) *
I would include the GPEOL but make clear that Beavis excluded pay car parks
I've been scouring the net for details on the Beavis case to find the correct wording around this but to no avail. some pointers would be greatly appreciated as I'm sure I can't quote Tove's "The Court of Appeal in the Beavis case made it quite clear that charging a whopping amount due to lack of payment of a very small amount (another hour's parking) would not fly." biggrin.gif

Yes; say which parts of POFA have not been met
added to points 5 & 6 (please can I ask you to review and advise), although I struggle to understand see the incorrect stating of 9(2)(f) - is it because of the dates specified?

I would also include 9(2)© that ParkingEye fails to state what they believe the driver did wrong and leaves the registered keeper to guess
point 4 added: - Your notice fails to 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 the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable, as required under section 9(2)© of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


Is the following acceptable for submission as I would like to proceed this evening?
thanks
Mike


Re: Parking Charge Reference number xxxxxxx Vehicle registration: xxxxxxxx

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. 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.

3. 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.
4. Your notice fails to 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 the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable, as required under section 9(2)© of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5. Your notice fails to correctly state section 9(2)(e)(i) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by only requesting the driver’s information be provided and the notice passed on to them.
6. Your notice fails to correctly state section 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.


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 received 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.
5) provide evidence that the car was parked for the period claimed, and not just in the car park. The time shown in the photos of the vehicle’s arrival and departure times implies you make an assumption that the car was parked for that full period of time and does not account for time taken for the vehicle to locate and exit a parking bay.

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,
Mike_S
Bump
Mike_S
think I have found the statement in the Beavis case re the GPEOL:

46. "It would not be afforded by a system of imposing a rate per hour according to the time overstayed, unless that rate were also substantial, and well above what might be regarded as a market rate for the elapsed time, even if the market rate were in some way adjusted to take account of the benefit to the driver of the first two hours being free."

I also added BPA OAS 13.4 (re grace periods) to the challenge on arrival & departure vs parking
Mike_S
I received the following appeal rejection email from PE today so on to POPLA we go....

Reference: Parking Charge Notice - ######/######
POPLA Ref: ###########
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 23
February 2018 at 11:26, at Sidcup Leisure Centre 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. Our records show that
insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event. 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.


We've spoken to the staff on the reception desk at Sidcup Leisure centre who by all accounts were very blasé about PE issuing tickets. I'll request to speak to the manager to call for them to instruct PE to cancel the charge but don't hold much hope for success.

I'll draft the POPLA appeal over the coming days and submit here for review/feedback from those of you in the know.
Below is the appeal wording submitted to PE. Presumably I use all these points in the POPLA appeal and to greater detail where possible?:


I dispute owing you any amount and deny all liability in this matter. Please accept this 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. Per Item 46 in Lord Justice Moore-Bick's judgement of the case of ParkingEye vs Beavis, "...It would not be afforded by a system of imposing a rate per hour according to the time overstayed, unless that rate were also substantial, and well above what might be regarded as a market rate for the elapsed time, even if the market rate were in some way adjusted to take account of the benefit to the driver of the first two hours being free."
2. No contract was formed with the driver due to the fact that your signs were were not sufficiently brought to the attention of the driver.
3. 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.
4. Your notice fails to describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period and leaves them to guess the reason for the charge: the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable, as required under section 9(2)© of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are missing.
5. Your notice fails to correctly state section 9(2)(e)(i) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by only requesting the driver’s information be provided and the notice passed on to them.
6. Your notice fails to correctly state section 9(2)(f) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Please confirm in writing that you accept my appeal and withdraw your demand.
Should you reject this 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 rate for parking and service provided for that fee.
2) Please also advise the amount of money you would have received 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.
5) Provide evidence that the car was parked for the period claimed, and not just in the car park. The time shown in the photos are those of the vehicle’s arrival and departure times which implies you make an assumption that the car was parked for that full period of time and does not account for time taken for the vehicle to locate and exit a parking bay for which a grace period is entitled per section 13.4 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice: "You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes."

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.



Mike_S
Good news !
Following the rejection letter from PE posted in my last message here, I sent an appeal to POPLA. On the deadline day for their response, PE responded to say they did not wish to contest my appeal and therefore the charge has been dropped.

I'll add my appeal to the database.

Needless to say that while it was quite an effort as a noob to put together the documentation (and I was for much of it very tempted to just not bother as I really struggled to find any time to read up and put my own case together due to work and family commitments), I benefited greatly from reading examples on here and MSE that helped me to construct my appeal (which ended up being 10 pages long icon_eek.gif)

Thanks to all of you who provide assistance here and on MSE for those of who don't have a clue about any of the legal jargon and would so easily be taken advantage of by these parking firms.

Mike
Mike_S
In case its any help here's where I've added a copy of my POPLA appeal (page 23):

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...0&start=440
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.