Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Elderly mother and Aldi parking fines
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
mcpep
Hi smile.gif

My situation is this:
My dad is currently staying in hospital for a while due to ill health. My elderly mother who struggles with her mental health isn't that confident with her driving / parking, and the parking at the local hospital is a nightmare. So, she's been parking in her local Aldi car park (where she also occasionally shops), and getting the bus to the hospital, not realising that to do so incurs a fine. She's not spotted any of the signs that detail the parking rules at Aldi (to be honest I didn't either). 10 days after she 1st did this she has now received a letter from Aldi stating that she has a parking fine of £40 going up if she doesn't pay within 14 days. She's never received a ticket on her car for this, so didn't know she was doing any wrong. Potentially she could now have 10 fines to pay by now, and would struggle to pay these on her state pension.

What are my options in advising her here? Is it the case that as this is a private company issuing the fines, that if she ignores correspondence there's nothing they can do? Or even if she just paid one fine that would be acceptable, but £400 would be too much for her, especially as her situation at home is costing her more than her normal life would...

Thanks for your help and sorry if this has been answered elsewhere!
DBC
For a start these are not fines, they are invoices and were issued by Parking Eye who are employed by Aldi. Your best plan is to contact Aldi directly and ask them to get PE to cancel the ticket. If you are on Facebook then go on their and lodge a complaint.
ManxRed
In parallel though, be mindful that there is an appeal process for these which ought to be followed, this ticket can easily be cancelled by the independent appeals body POPLA, however you first need to appeal to Parking Eye and let them reject the appeal (they reject ALL appeals, don't worry about this).

I would suggest your Mum sends (you can write it, but it needs to be signed and sent by her) an appeal stating that she is the registered keeper (don't actually mention who was driving, simply state 'the driver did this, the driver did that, if you need to), and that she is challenging this ticket on the following basis.

1. Inadequate signage means that no contract was formed with the driver
2. The sum they are seeking does not represent any loss suffered by either Parking Eye or ALDI.

She would like them to cancel the ticket, however if this challenge is rejected then please enclose the POPLA code so that she can take this up with the independent appeals process.

However, as DBC states, get onto ALDI at the same time.
enfield freddy
DON,T bother with the farcebook page , it is not run by aldi , but by a PR company called webber shanwick , they don,t know an insult from a compliment or even a baked bean from a light bulb , you will just get the stock answer "please contact customer services at ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
mcpep
Hi again, cheers for your responses sorry it's taken me a while to get back I've been away.

So, would my best option be to contact Aldi directly, or write a letter appealing the (2) fines to Parking Eye? Or both?

Is there a rough template for the appeal letter to Parking Eye? Should I mention the family circumstances involved?

Thanks again for any help it's massively appreciated smile.gif
cabbyman
Both.

Parking Eye will reject your initial appeal but should send you a POPLA code to kill it there. It doesn't matter what you write to PE but the wording of your appeal to POPLA is crucial. Keep within the time limits so that you don't get caught out by that and come back here when you receive your PE rejuection.
mcpep
Which time limits exactly? I think the 'offer' to pay the tickets at £40 has expired by about 1-2 weeks on the tickets.

Will get drafting something for Parking Eye and find someone to speak to at Aldi! Cheers
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (mcpep @ Mon, 28 Apr 2014 - 22:34) *
Hi again, cheers for your responses sorry it's taken me a while to get back I've been away. So, would my best option be to contact Aldi directly, or write a letter appealing the (2) fines to Parking Eye? Or both? Is there a rough template for the appeal letter to Parking Eye? Should I mention the family circumstances involved? Thanks again for any help it's massively appreciated smile.gif


I wrote a template first appeal letter on this MSE sticky thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

Use that for all the PCNs, one at a time online (don't waste a stamp!).

hoohoo
You need to get a move on. This will all be resolved if you appeal, but this must be done within 28 days. Don't worry about the initial appeal because this is always rejected. Just get something in to start the process.

See post #3. Those few lines will be enough. You don't need war and peace.
mcpep
Thanks for the help guys smile.gif

I've now submitted an appeal to both tickets on the Parking Eye website stating what was stated in post #3. I will let you know when they get back to me. Thanks again
mcpep
Hi all,

I've now had a reply from Parking Eye rejecting the appeal due to not providing sufficient evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the signage weren't broken.. They also provide a pre-estimate of loss and commercial justification, quoting ParkingEye Ltd vs Mr Shelley (2013). It also has an Annex containing details of other cases won by ParkingEye in 2013..

What should my next step be? Appeal to POPLA?

Thanks again for your help! smile.gif
emanresu
QUOTE
What should my next step be? Appeal to POPLA?


Yes. See the Completed Cases section. Plenty of PE threads in there.
SevenTowers
QUOTE (mcpep @ Mon, 12 May 2014 - 15:15) *
Hi all,

I've now had a reply from Parking Eye rejecting the appeal due to not providing sufficient evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the signage weren't broken.. They also provide a pre-estimate of loss and commercial justification, quoting ParkingEye Ltd vs Mr Shelley (2013). It also has an Annex containing details of other cases won by ParkingEye in 2013..

What should my next step be? Appeal to POPLA?

Thanks again for your help! smile.gif

Yes, absolutely appeal to POPLA, but post your appeal here before submitting so we can ensure it is a winning appeal, the following link tells you all you need for a winner;-

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...81&posted=1

And despite what they want you to believe, POPLA won't buy their GPEOL nonsense, it's just an attempt to frighten you into giving up.
bama
QUOTE
due to not providing sufficient evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the signage weren't broken.

they still trotting put that utter b/s
no one can prove a negative - and they (esp. Ledson) knows it
Fistral Dude
Always amazed at how ALDI and their partners, Parking Eye are willing to drag their customers through the legal system for parking errors, yet seem to continually have blatant disregard for the safety of their staff and safety. Northwich, 17:08: 16/5/14. Geo tagged stuff sent to the Fire Service.

farmerboy
Nice, might want to check the last service on those fire extinguishers too.
mullie
In my local store you have to put I your reg at a terminal by the door so walk in enter number plate walk out 😝😝😝😝😝💶
Fistral Dude
cheers farmer boy !
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (mcpep @ Mon, 12 May 2014 - 15:15) *
Hi all, I've now had a reply from Parking Eye rejecting the appeal due to not providing sufficient evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the signage weren't broken.. They also provide a pre-estimate of loss and commercial justification, quoting ParkingEye Ltd vs Mr Shelley (2013). It also has an Annex containing details of other cases won by ParkingEye in 2013.. What should my next step be? Appeal to POPLA? Thanks again for your help! smile.gif


How to win at POPLA,




HTH




mcpep
Hi all,

Unfortunately due to a busy life helping my dad back to good health and my own general stupidity I've now let the 28 day period to appeal expire last Weds, thought I had a week or 2 left sad.gif However I'm hopeful that with some explanation to POPLA about the fact that the correspondence was sent to my dad (the registered keeper of the vehicle) who has been in hospital until very recently, that POPLA will still accept my appeal. As such I obviously need to get the appeal in ASAP.

Looking at the link some have provided (thanks!), this is what I've come up with as my 1st draft, could you let me know if you think it is sufficient for a successful appeal, and if there is anything else I can put in which will help with the fact that the appeal is a few days late. Thanks again!

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

Dear POPLA Assessor,
Re: ParkingEye fake PCN, verification code xxxxxxxxxx

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye.

I have recently suffered some very ill health which resulted in a 3 month stay in xxxxxxxx hospital. Whilst I was in hospital my elderly wife who has struggled with her mental health in recent years visited me daily. She is not a confident driver / parker, and there is very little available parking at xxxxxxx hospital, so she did not attempt this, usually getting the bus to and from hospital. During the time I was in hospital, on 2 ocassions she parked in the Aldi car park in xxxxxxxxxx, got the bus to the hospital and visited me in hospital for 1 hour, then came back and bought her shopping from Aldi as she regularly does, then drove home. It is on these 2 ocassions that she incurred a charge from Parking Eye. Her eyesight is not the best, and the she did not notice any of the inadequate signage in the car park that details parking charges for customers who stayed longer than 2 hours. If she would have noticed the signs she clearly would have chosen somewhere else to park, such as the tesco car park directly next door to Aldi which has no such proscriptions on parking as the car park on council land. This is where she usually parked when visiting me, but on the 2 ocassions mentioned, chose not to as she was visiting Aldi on her way home. Unfortunately as we were not aware of the charges until several weeks after the day that she did the shopping at Aldi, she did not keep her receipts.

I would also like to request that POPLA consider this appeal despite it being 5 days after the expiry of the 28 day appeal period. As I stated above, I have been in hospital for the last 3 months, and unfortunately I was not aware of Parking Eye's rejection of my appeal until I returned home and opened several weeks worth of mail that had built up. Had it not been for my extended stay in hospital, I would have appealed this in a timely fashion, for the delay you have my sincere apologies.

Notwithstanding that we were genuine customers of the principal (Aldi), I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:

1) No genuine pre-estimate of loss
This car park is free and there is no provision for the purchasing of a ticket or any other means for paying for parking. There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event. Given that ParkingEye charge the same lump sum for a 15 minute overstay as they would for 150 minutes, and the same fixed charge applies to any alleged contravention (whether serious/damaging, or trifling as in my case), it is clear there has been no regard paid to establishing that this charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In Parking Eye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011, the judge decided that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty. And in my case this was a free car park with no payment due whatsoever.

The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.

ParkingEye and POPLA will be familiar with the well-known case on whether a sum is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a penalty: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Limited v New Garage and Motor Company [1915] AC 79. Indeed I expect ParkingEye might cite it. However, therein is the classic statement, in the speech of Lord Dunedin, that a stipulation: “… will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss which could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.'' There is a presumption... that it is penalty when "a single lump sum is made payable by way of compensation, on the occurrence of one or more or all of several events, some of which may occasion serious and others but trifling damage".

No doubt ParkingEye will send their usual well-known template bluster attempting to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye car park at Town Quay Southampton, POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of their car park management services is commercially justified. ''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''

My case is the same and POPLA must be seen to be consistent if similar arguments are raised by an appellant.

2) No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
ParkingEye do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against ParkingEye which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.

In ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646 in the Brentford County Court 23/10/2013 District Judge Jenkins checked the ParkingEye contract and quickly picked out the contradiction between clause 3.7, where the landowner appoints ParkingEye as their agent, and clause 22, where is states there is no agency relationship between ParkingEye and the landowner. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the parking contract was a commercial matter between the Operator and their agent, and didn’t create any contractual relationship between ParkingEye and motorists who used the land. This decision was followed by ParkingEye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598 in the High Wycombe County Court 14/11/2013 where costs of £90 were awarded to the Defendant. District Judge Jones concurred completely with the persuasive view in ParkingEye v Sharma that a parking operator has no standing to bring the claim in their own name. My case is the same.

3) Flawed landowner contract and irregularities with any witness statement
Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require ParkingEye to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam.

If ParkingEye produce a 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that ParkingEye witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. I suggest ParkingEye don't bother trying that in my case. If they do, I contend that there is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract terms, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner, or signed it on the date shown. I contend, if such a witness statement is submitted instead of the landowner contract itself, that this should be disregarded as unreliable and not proving full BPA compliance nor showing sufficient detail to disprove the findings in Sharma and Gardam.

Indeed I submit (and as I have raised the issue, ParkingEye must now disprove) that their Contract or User Agreement with Aldi is likely to contain a secret 'genuine customer exemption' clause which in fact exempts Aldi customers like us from these spurious charges. Not only have ParkingEye not allowed my initial appeal that the driver and passenger were genuine Aldi customers, but at the outset, when they allege a contract was formed, (which is denied) ParkingEye failed to alert the driver to that secret clause. Which leads me to the next point:

4) Breach of UTCCR 1999 and CPUTR 2008
I contend that a secret term which leaves a customer at a severe disadvantage as they are unaware of it, is a 'wholly unreasonable' contract term and a 'misleading omission' which is in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008. ParkingEye are taking unconscionable advantage of myself by demanding a 'charge' for alleged 'breach', holding me liable and yet not informing the driver at the point of any alleged contract, about the secret exemption clause that I believe exists in their contract with Aldi. Nor did they refer to it when rejecting my appeal which told them that we were customers who were delayed by illness in the store. Parking Eye as agents, have no lawful excuse to pursue this wholly unfair and disproportionate charge when I believe their own contract with the retailer specifically allows paying customers to be exempt. Parking Eye are seeking to impose punitive sanctions that are not required at all by any 'legitimate interest of the principal'.

CPUTR 2008 Part 2, Prohibitions
Misleading omissions
6(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,
(b)the commercial practice hides material information,

and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Office of Fair Trading 'Guidance for the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999'
''It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law...''
Test of fairness
''A term is unfair if:
Contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers.
5.1 Unfair terms are not enforceable against the consumer.
9.2 ...terms of whose existence and content the consumer has no adequate notice at the time of entering the contract may not be binding under the general law, in any case, especially if they are onerous in character.''

If they refute this then Parking Eye must explain their position to POPLA, produce the unredacted section of the contract and/or User Manual and show how they consider they can override the express wishes of the principal when Parking Eye are mere agents. And explain how their secret 'exemption clause' meets the test of fairness if they do not share it with the party they hold liable. Such terms must be in the signage they are relying upon to have formed the alleged contract at the outset.

5)The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car, who were there at the invitation of Aldi, to shop and enjoy free parking as expressly offered to customers in the principal's advertising and website.

6) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from the cameras in this car park is just as unreliable and unsynchronised as the evidence in the Fox-Jones case. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to the contrary.

I request that my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to inform ParkingEye to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

THE REGISTERED KEEPER
SchoolRunMum
Submit it tonight, now, no more drafting. Your 28 days is already up. Oh dear.
mcpep
Any idea if this is the current best form of appeal to send guys?? Really need to get this sent today! Sorry for the hassle etc..! smile.gif

Edit: I have now sent the appeal, fingers crossed.
mcpep
Hi all,

just to let you know, the appeal was allowed smile.gif I'm delighted for my mum who doesn't have to pay this extortionate 'fine'! Thanks to all of you for your help smile.gif
ManxRed
Excellent. Well done.

On what basis did you win?
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.