Your letter to POLPA should be copied to the BPA and it should point out that PE have refused your appela but failed to provide a POPLA code and that you wish to have their claim rejected on this matter alone unless a valid code is produced within the correct time frame.

Dear parking eye

I have been passed authority to deal with the ticket (ref: XXXXX) from Mrs XXX, you can confirm this with her on the phone number XXXXXX, therefore any further correspondence needs to be directed to myself at the above address

Thank you for your recent bundle of a letter which obviously you seem to think deals with the issues I raised

However you seem to have acted under the assumption that it was simply a “letter” and not an appeal, and “forgotten” to include the popla code, as you received it via the appeals part of your website you know that this was an appeal and not a letter, so you have to provide a popla code

I notice that your current letter is obviously designed to intimidate people who have received a “ticket” by mentioning taking them to court as often as possible while only mentioning popla in one line tagged on the end of a paragraph about how you “always win in court”

You also state “thank you for confirming you were not the driver” while if you read the appeal carefully you will find we make no such statement, you also put the appeal on hold until you receive further evidence again something you are not allowed to do by BPA rules

As You also seem to like to rely on using past cases to intimidate then I would suggest that you update your template letters as they appear wildly inaccurate, for example under your “example” of Genuine Pre-Estimate of loss you have listed such things such as membership costs to various bodies, costs of installing cameras and the employment of office staff, as you are aware these are the general costs of running a business and not a loss caused by this instance of parking

You also deliberately miss-state the cost of a parking ticket with the line “the full amount of the parking charge is £100 the reduced amount for early payment is £60” in this case the sign actually states that the ticket is £90 reduced to £54, therefore again deliberately miss-leading the motorist

You also state that the “below list is not a full list of all cases, they are however every court hearing where the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss has been raised since popla has been in place”, again this is deliberately miss-leading and intimidatory as I have a list of cases since popla started that used Genuine pre-estimate of loss and won, these include but are not limited to:-

3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke (Barrow-in-Furness, 19/12/2013)

3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013).

3JD03769 ParkingEye v Baddeley (Birmingham 11/02/2014)

3JD05448 ParkingEye v Gilmartin

I have used these 5 cases as examples but have provided a further list at the end of the letter

As you can see I reject your letter in its entirety and request a true answer to the appeal made along with the popla code that you are required to provide, I require this popla code in an easy to read format and not hidden amongst a large body of text

I will also be making a formal complaint to Popla on your handling of this appeal, also with further formal complaints to all the regulatory bodies listed in your “pre-estimate” of costs, I also intend to write to the DVLA using this letter as an example of your intimidatory nature and request that you are temporally suspended from requesting driver details, I will also point out that any attempts to ignore these letters will result in further letters to mp requesting investigations into any possible conflict of interest between two capita run businesses

Yours sincerely

M H

P.s. As you included 3 pages of court cases you have won please find attached 5 pages of cases you have lost

I would ask them again for the POPLA code. They aren't giving one because they know your appeal would get canceled at POPLA. They know they have ZERO chance at a POPLA appeal (since it's a FREE carpark) and are clutching at staws.

Ask them one more time for the POPLA code, my money is on that they will give up and not even reply.

above letter has gone so lets see the responce

My friend has appealed to Parking eye citing GPOL, they have sent a reply stating the appeas refused and sent a POPLA code!

Then that should be the main thrust of ther appeal. make sure that you start off by demanding sight of the contract with landowner that gives PE the right to claim for losses in their own name. Then, if that is forthcoming the claim for figure not being a loss or a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

just wondering how far i can push this with parking eye

can i ask a quick question ericsbrother as you seem to know alot about them and how they operate?

in the letter they sent the FIL they took a paragraph out of a court case - parking eye V somerfield stores, wasnt this case appealed?, i cant look it up at the min as my internet is V. slow

It is one of the landmark cases as it determined that Somerfield werent entitled to end their contract with PE just because PE were robbing the customers blind. The judge decided that robbing your customers wanst a valid reason to repudiate a contract nor was it onconscionable enough to change the business relationship between this 2 parties but it did rather point out that the charges were a penalty and unjustified rather than a claim for damages due to breach of contract. PE changed the wording in their contracts with landowners and the wording on their signs in an attempt to kepp the money rolling in. Their court claims have also morphed several times as for why they are suing so it is obvious to anyone following their antics that they didnt have a case to start with and are rather stupid to fight any defended claim as they will nealry always lose.

They are obviously quoting bits of that case out of context as it really was about B2B bilateral contracts, not a unilateral contract via an advertisement.

hmm ill type up what they put in a bit as the quote they've used says that someone would fail to say that it was a penalty

I conclude that any motorist using the car park would be

contractually bound to pay the charge of £75 if he exceeded the specified

time limit and a demand for payment was made upon him. Whilst he

might argue that the charge in question amounted to a penalty and was

therefore irrecoverable, I think he would probably fail in that contention.

But it seems to me, on the limited material presently before me, that he

would probably succeed in any argument that the increase to £135 in the

event of a failure to pay within the specified period did amount to a

penalty.

the bit in red is what parking eye didnt say but i found in the full transcript

Then that should be the main thrust of ther appeal. make sure that you start off by demanding sight of the contract with landowner that gives PE the right to claim for losses in their own name. Then, if that is forthcoming the claim for figure not being a loss or a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Hi, thanks for responding. We have already requested proof that the contract with the landowner gives them the right to claim loss but they have ignored that in their replies. They have sent a POPLA code and information sheet. The Info sheet states only 4 grounds for appeal:

Vehicle was not improperly parked (i.e. you believe you were still within time limit)

Parking charge exceeded the appropriate amount (i.e. you are being asked to pay the wrong amount for the parking charge)

The Vehicle was Stolen

You are not liable for the parking charge (i.e. you sold the vehicle before or bought it after the date of the parking charge)

Which of these 4 boxes do we tick to appeal on GPEOL ?

Is this wording ok for the appeal? Despite asking Parking Eye to submit a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss, they have declined to do so. We are aware that charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing theticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

They can tell you what they want but that does not mean it is true. I recommend that a written appeal is put to POPLA so you dont have to use any tick boxes on the web page. That way you can say anything and the GPEOL is obviously not on the boxes otherwise the parking co's would not bother rejecting your appeal in the first place. PE have a habit of trying to bully people into giving up. they try it on at court as well but as yet no-one has made a formal complaint bout them using the courts as a debt collecting tool when the debt hasnt been proven to exist.

Make a stong note in your POPLA appeal that you have requested the proof of contract with LL that allows them to claim in their own name but they refused to let you see it and that you therefore contend that until you get sight of the contract you dispute PE's right to claim any contract exists to have been breached.

OOOps, then go into the PE not showing a breakdown of costs or a genuine pre-estimate of loss that are a direct result of your alleged breach for an overstay in a free car park owned and maintained by a third party.

OK, thanks. They actually sent a POPLA form to fill in but I will write a letter of appeal based on GPEOL with wording along the lines of:

Despite asking Parking Eye to submit a Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss, they have declined to do so. We are aware that charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing theticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.

If you wish to tick a box, then it is the ' I am not liable for the parking charge' one.

Because you are not.

I seem to be getting a bit lost in this. Any other ideas or is it just wait for replies? Anything else I can do to make parking eye some difficulties?

I seem to be getting a bit lost in this. Any other ideas or is it just wait for replies? Anything else I can do to make parking eye some difficulties?

Having had in the past a few conversations with PE employees (before POFA) basically to wind them up, I think I can say talking to them is a waste of time. They have only one aim to get you to pay.

I once owned a fleet of lorries and vans so regularly got tickets for overnight stays, never as the driver just the keeper. Once had a conversation with a manager wont mention names but he is still there, who after I told him, and he agreed I had no legal obligation to furnish the drivers details, tried to tell me however I had a moral obligation to tell them! I asked if he was in the right job if he wished to be moral!

I did also once or twice as their business was a commercial concern and not a legal or statutory body offer to furnish the drivers details for the same fee they wanted from the driver. They never obliged!

Talk to the dog, and wait for them to reply.

just got the popla code, already check and it does match up to the day of refusal

no mention of any of the issues raised in the letter tho

Address

Appeal of Parking eye ticket:

Popla Code:

Dear sir I would like to make an appeal of the above ticket on several counts

1) The ticket Is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss, We asked for a breakdown of this in our first appeal to parking eye and received a letter stating that they did NOT have to provide a genuine pre-estimate of loss but only a “commercial justification” – they also said this would include the cost of installing the cameras, membership of bodies and other things that were not losses from this event, we require that a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss is provided

2) As the car park in question is a free car park there is no initial loss to the land owner, therefore there is no loss for parking eye to claim against

3) Parking eye have been unable to give accurate times in which the car was parked, only providing entry and exit pictures, which only proves time in the car park not time parked, We require that parking eye proves length of time the car was parked

4) The signage is not clear and legible as the only signs in the carpark including the one on entry are set above head height, with small text, which cannot be read by the driver of a car entering the carpark (see attached image)

5) Parking eye have not been able to provide a copy of the contract that allows them to chase for monies on the landowners behalf, we require that they produce the full unredacted contract proving they have this authority

6) Parking eye failed to provide a correct notice to keeper in that they failed to provide details of the dispute resolution services available

7) Parking eye failed to allow a grace period as required by British Parking Association Regulations

Please Find also enclosed Copies of communication, Still Image from car entering carpark showing sign, Dvd Video of dashboard camera showing un-readability of sign from car.

Anything else needs to go in or do you think thats acceptable?

The first line wins it currently...

Then you have a few more points that will win.

PE will offer no evidence to POPLA and the appeal will be allowed. (In my opinion. )

If you are after more ammo, this is not an automatic win but not supplying a code on your first appeal is a no-no along with your failure of 'notice to keeper' of popla.This shows a second procedural error, (a pattern emerges). I cant find the link just yet but parking prankster should have some more information on this as it is a common tactic not to issue codes (or issue incorrect ones) and then hope you are out of time for the popla process

note the 'you must' . Grounds for a procedural error i think

BPA Ltd Code of Practice

22.12 If you reject a challenge you must:

• tell the motorist how to make an appeal to POPLA. This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal and the 10-digit verification code. Even if the verification code is automatically printed on an enclosed appeal form, it must still be in the dated rejection notice/letter.

• give the motorist a reasonable amount of time to pay the charge before restarting the collection process.

We recommend that you allow at least 35 days from the date you received the challenge

going to remove the incorrect notice to keeper part, just receaved the full item from the in-laws (only had image of the front part last time) and the appeal part is on the rear

just been back upto the carpark and theres no wonder FIL didnt notice the sign on the way in

spot the sign on the left and see if you think you could read it from the entrance?

appeal sent

1. Parking Eye have failed to clarify whether the charge is for damages arising from breach of contract or a contractual charge.

2. If this is a claim for damages, I require Parking Eye to provide a full breakdown of genuine pre-estimates of loss to the landowner that this charge represents. Obviously, business running costs do not apply. I contend that the landowner and Parking Eye have suffered no loss on an alleged overstay in a free car park.

3. If this is issued as a contractual charge, I require Parking Eye to provide proof that the charge is fair, reasonable and not punitive. I submit that Parking Eye has not provided a mechanism on site if the driver wishes to stay for longer than 60 minutes, and it is an unfair attempt to make a party pay excessively for an event which would normally be 'breach of contract.' I contend that the £90 charge is punitive, and an unenforceable penalty.

4. I require Parking Eye to produce to POPLA the contemporaneous and unredacted contract between the landowner and Parking Eye that authorises them to issue parking charge notices. I contend that there is no contract with the landowner that entitles Parking Eye to levy these charges and to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts, and Parking Eye therefore has no authority to issue charge notices.

5. Parking eye have been unable to give accurate times in which the car was parked, only providing entry and exit pictures, which only proves time in the car park not time parked, We require that parking eye proves length of time the car was parked

6. The signage is not clear and legible as the only signs in the carpark are set above head height, There is also no clear and legible sign on entry as parking eye have installed this sign facing the opposite directions to the flow of traffic on entry (see attached image)

7. Parking eye failed to allow a grace period as required by British Parking Association Regulations

Sorry but the appeal was so well written on the other thread that i stole it to replace some of the badly written parts of mine

just as an aside the car park has (after only a month) now become patrolled by UKPCS

just as an aside the car park has (after only a month) now become patrolled by UKPCS

Then PE will definitely offer no evidence to POPLA then...