*** ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - WON ***

[Kati]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

I'm not sure which is better, both would work (I think)

If you write to them, make sure you send it recorded/signed for (costs less than £2) so you have proof they received it :tinysmile_grin_t:

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Email is FREE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you've got too much money (i.e. want to send a letter) just pay the ticket

M1

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Email it is then, from my gov.uk email address :doggieyes:

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Just in case it's any use to anyone, here is a scan of the Parking Charge Notice:



The pictures of my car on it shows the darkness & could have been taken anywhere!!!

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Last addition before I send off the rejection email ... I have just been round to where I parked to take some photos & here they are. Looks pretty dark to me & when you're driving in, you really can't see anything!





I also went into the pub and asked who owned the land & they said it was "the Marina" ... whoever they are.
What do you think?

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Handy for court cases, pointless for appeals

M1

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Hello once again.

Here's the latest. About a week ago, I received a Parking Charge Notice Reminder which I ignored.

This morning, I received a latter from ParkingEye saying "Thank you for your correspondence .... Your recent appeal has been unsuccessful ... you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms & conditions on the signage."

It then goes on about a recent court hearing where ParkingEye won ...

And ends with "We also note that a number of your queries are of a generic nature, a number of which we have seen before ... as a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for 14 days"

They also put in the POPLA reference number.

What do I do next?

Thanks
Ian

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Hello once again.

Here's the latest. About a week ago, I received a Parking Charge Notice Reminder which I ignored.

This morning, I received a latter from ParkingEye saying "Thank you for your correspondence .... Your recent appeal has been unsuccessful ... you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms & conditions on the signage."

It then goes on about a recent court hearing where ParkingEye won ...

And ends with "We also note that a number of your queries are of a generic nature, a number of which we have seen before ... as a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for 14 days"

They also put in the POPLA reference number.

What do I do next?

Thanks
Ian

Appeal to popla. Edit http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter or http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Appeal-Letter to suit.

Beavis is being appealed and has not affected the easy popla win.

M1

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Thanks M1

Do I copy & paste the entire "letter", sign it & send it to POPLA?

Can I add anything in about the lack of lighting / photos or just send the appeal as it is in its entirety?

I read through most of it (the first link) but I can't see anywhere I can edit it to suit my 'case'.

Cheers
Ian

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

If there is nothing to edit then don't

Copy and paste https://www.popla.org.uk/appeal.htm

M1

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Okay - I have just copied & pasted the 2nd link (from an earlier thread here) and change the name from Civil .... to ParkingEye.

All the stuff about previous court cases I haven't touched.

Should I attach the photos of how dark it is or explain how dark it is or not?

Can I paste in here what I am sending them just to make sure it's correct, or should I just send it changing the name of the company to ParkingEye?

Many apologies for sounding so dim, but this is the first time I have ever had this happen, so I am totally relying on your knowledge & experience!

Thanks
Ian

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

You can certainly add that.

Yes post it up here first if you want to.

M1

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Thanks again, M1

Here is what I've edited:

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

Dear Sir/Madam,


I appeal against the decision of ParkingEye Ltd because they have failed to follow the BPA code of practice and attempted to impose a penalty charge for either breach of contract or trespass.


The operator does not appear to own this car park and are assumed to be merely agents for the owner or legal occupier. In their Notice and in the rejection letters, The operator has not provided me with any evidence that it is lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper, since they do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question.


I require the operator to provide a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed & dated contract with the landowner.


Contracts are complicated things, so a witness statement signed by someone is not good enough, neither is a statement that a person has seen it. A copy of the original, showing the points above, is the only acceptable item as evidence that a contract exists and authorises the Operator the right, under contract, to write numerous letters to an appellant chasing monies without taking them to Court, to pursue parking charges in their own name, to retain any monies received from appellants and to pursue them through to Court.


I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice.


I do not believe that the Operator has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed the legal standing to allege a breach of contract. I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges.


It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be."


The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."


In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.


The Operator also make reference in their appeal refusal of (date) to “seek to recover the monies owed to us” and makes no reference to the Landlord at all.


7.1 of the BPA code of practice makes it a requirement that ParkingEye Ltd either own the land, or have the written authorisation of the land owner to enable them to operate on the land. I, as registered keeper, put ParkingEye Ltd to strict proof that a valid contract exists that enables them to act in this manner on behalf of the landowner. It is not an onerus task to produce the contract as secttion 8.1 of the code means it has to be available at all times.




The BPA Code of Practice indicates at paragraph 13.4 that the Respondent should, “allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” The signage in the car park provides no indication of the period of time it allows and this is unreasonable, especially as ParkingEye Ltd rely on pictures taken of a vehicle at first arrival and then when leaving (not showing any evidence at all of actual parking time). So, there is no evidence that the respondent can produce to indicate that my vehicle was parked for more than the arbitrary time limit they are relying upon, and no breach of contract by the driver can be demonstrated by their evidence at all. On that basis the sum claimed fails to meet the standards set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA Code of Practice.




19.5 of the code of practice states, “If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer,”


On the date of the claimed loss the car park was nearly empty and there was no physical damage caused. There can have been no loss arising from this incident. Neither can ParkingEye Ltd lawfully include their operational day-to-day running costs in enforcing parking restrictions at the site (for example, by erecting signage and employing administration staff) in any 'loss' claimed. See VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICESLIMITED -v- MR R IBBOTSON and A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K, Oxford County Court. This does not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract. In other words, were no breach to have occurred, the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same. This has been quoted by PoPLA itself in adjucation.


I contend there can be no loss shown whatsoever; no pre-estimate (prior to starting to 'charge for breaches' at this site) has been prepared or considered in advance.


The charge that was levied is punitive and therefore void (i.e. unenforceable) against me. The initial charge is arbitrary and in no way proportionate to any alleged breach of contract. Nor does it even equate to local council charges for all day parking. This is all the more so for the additional charges which operator states accrues after 28 days of non-payment. This would also apply to any mentioned costs incurred through debt recovery unless it followed a court order. I would question that if a charge can be discounted by 40% by early payment that it is unreasonable to begin with.


UNLAWFUL PENALTY CHARGE


Since there was no demonstrable loss/damage and yet a breach of contract has been alleged for a free car park, it can only remain a fact that this 'charge' is an attempt at extorting an unlawful charge to impersonate a parking ticket. This is similar to the decisions in several County Court cases such as Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008), also OBServices v Thurlow (review, February 2011), Parking Eye v Smith (Manchester County Court December 2011) and UKCPS v Murphy (April 2012) .


The operator is either charging for losses or it is a penalty/fine.


The operator could state the letter as an invoice or request for monies, but chooses to use the wording “CONTRACTUAL PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” in an attempt to be deemed an official parking fine similar to what the Police and Council Wardens issue.


The signage on site is very badly lit, and in darkness, impossible to see when entering the premises. I have photographs to prove this. There is no option to stay by paying. A clear penalty.




NO CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER


There is no contract between Parking Eye Ltd. and the driver, but even if there was a contract then it is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.. So the requirements of forming a contract such as a meeting of minds, agreement, certainty of terms, etc, were not satisfied.


UNFAIR TERMS


The charge that was levied is an unfair term, and therefore not binding, pursuant to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular, Schedule 2 of those Regulations gives an indicative (and non-exhaustive) list of terms which may be regarded as unfair and includes at Schedule 2(1)(e) "Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." Furthermore, Regulation 5(1) states that: "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer" and 5(2) states: "A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term."


UNREASONABLE


The charge that was levied is an unreasonable indemnity clause pursuant to section 4(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that: "A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.”


I further contend that Parking Eye Ltd have failed to show me any evidence that the cameras in this car park comply with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice part 21 (ANPR) and would require POPLA to consider that particular section of the Code in its entirety and decide whether the Operator has shown proof of contemporaneous manual checks and full compliance with section 21 of the Code, in its evidence. I, as registered keeper, contend that these cameras and their operation do not meet the standards laid down in the BPA code of practice.


As a Traffic Officer where observation and abiding with traffic laws are paramount to my employment, I find the lack of sufficient lighting and position for the signs make it impossible to sufficiently see the signs on entry to the area.

I was also told by a member of staff in the establishment where I was visiting (with my wife) that they always told motorists that they were not supposed to park there. We were not informed of this, and as mentioned, were totally unaware of the land being 'private' for our 90 minute visit.

I have photographs showing the darkness on entering the area and will be glad to send them if required.

I would contend that this appeal should be allowed for these reasons.

Yours faithfully
XXXXXXX

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

I've basically changed Civil Enforcement from the original to ParkingEye.

I also took out the bit about "staying for over the allowed time because it mentioned car park charges.

And at the end I added a couple of paragraphs - are they a waste of time or can they be worded better?

Thank you again for your assistance.

Ian

[mystery1]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

That'll work :okay:

M1

[CaptainChaos]

Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice - Advice please

Once again, thank you very very much (so far) M1 for your help on this.

Obviously, I will update you with what happens next!

Ian