send us a better resolution crop of that part easier!!

Thanks - I have cropped the relevant small print on the signage - see attached.

Parking Eye signage - small print.pdf

well,

the wording is too small for it to be considered part of the contract offered and also there are part of it which break other consumer legislation like the addititon of other unspecified "collection" charges.

Now, it can be argued that as these terms are unlawful the whole contract can be rejected by the consumer undr s62 of the consumer rights act.

I have argued this with other companies that like to add cancellation or similar charges to contracts

but I dont know of any previous decisions in a court recently

( there are cases where the small print was thrown out because it was too small or referred to other terms not visible such as on the parking meter rather than a sign)

Would I argue this at POPLA?.

I dont think it will help you

it is down to whether PE read it and decide that they are on to a loser later and just drop the matter to save money and a possible cash cow drying up

@ ericsbrother thanks for your reply.

the fact that their allegation

is that I left the car park 52 seconds after 6pm

-as already pointed out to me in earlier posts,

this is in breach of BPA guidelines

“13.4 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”

Therefore do you think POPLA would accept my appeal just based on this?

Thanks

If we lived in an ideal world and POPLA was totally independent then yes 52 seconds over time would be enough.

However the reason for putting in as many objections as possible is to cover all the eventualities so that at least one will hit the target.

If you win at POPLA there is no chance that they can then go to Court.

And if you put everything in,

the Adjudicator may select a reason to quash their claim for a matter other than the time factor.

For instance POPLA tend not to accept parking company's claim that their charge of around £100 is a genuine pre-estimate of their losses.

If you put them all in, you only need one of them to be right in the Adjudicator eyes to be home and dry. if you only put in one reason [time] and it fails for whatever reason, PE will be chasing you hard for payment and perhaps a Court appearance.

Of course if they did take you to Court you would have an excellent chance of claiming £250 for breach of the Data Protection Act so all would not be lost. One would think though that PE would not be so stupid.........

thank you all for your advise. I will try and put together the proposed appeal at the weekend, so will appreciate for your support /feedback before I submit. Thanks

BTW - please find below latest response I received from the DVLA to my email below:

My email: " Thanks for your email. I am very surprised you deem an alleged overstay of 52 seconds in the car park as ‘reasonable cause’ to release my personal data. Can I please ask whether the DVLA have processes in place to audit the personal data requests made by Parking Eye? If so when was this last done and how many requests for data were looked at?"

DVLA response: ".... As mentioned by my colleague , DVLA cannot regulate how private parking companies manage the sites they are authorised to operate on. If you believe that the parking charge was issued unfairly, there is a route available to the motorist to appeal the charge.

With regards to your query relating to the auditing process employed by DVLA, the Agency carries out audits on ParkingEye Ltd and their data requests at least once a year. Within this audit, a sample of enquiries is taken and evidence is requested to support these enquiries. The last audit was conducted in May 2017 and consisted of a sample of 150 enquiries. ParkingEye Ltd achieved a high level of compliance as a result of this audit....."

150 samples?

they make 2 million data requests,

how is this sample anywhere near statistically representative?

Who then decide whether they have properly been made?

Answer PE.

they don't contact the motorist and ask them whether they got a ticket as a result of double dipping or whether the signage was a contractual offer or not.

This is the problem, the DVLA look with both eyes closed.

Their response is risible but as they make millions from the requests they are not going to stop the gravy train

Time for DVLA to appear on Watchdog again along with PE.

Thanks all for your support and feedback to date – as without this I would have given up on appealing and just paid the charges imposed.

I have drafted my appeal to POPLA , see below – feedback appreciated please.

In addition can I please get advise on the following 2 queries:

1. In my original appeal to Parking Eye I did disclose I was the driver , but in my appeal to POPLA I was going to state “the driver of the vehicle..” does this matter?

2. I received a supporting letter from my local MP, see attached (I have blacked out my personal details) – should I send this MP letter with my POPLA appeal?

Thanks in advance. Please see draft appeal to POPLA below.

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I’m writing to you to express my concern over the unfair PCN sent to the keeper of the car, number plate: XXXX XXX.

There are many points where Parking Eye has not observed the Code of Practice as laid out by the BPA, June 2015 version 6.

There are several key reasons for why I am challenging this Parking Charge Notice. The most important reasons being:

1. The driver of the vehicle disputes Parking Eye’s allegation that they were at the giveaway leaving the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds. According to the driver and the passengers clock they left the car park before 6pm. The driver paid £4.50 for parking on Saturday 26th August which covered parking charges costs on the day (see attached “Appx 1 - “Parking charge notice screenshot” and “parking charge notice signage”).

2. Parking Eye allege that the driver was at the giveway leaving the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds and therefore alleging the driver had overstayed by 52 seconds. Despite this allegation Parking Eye are in breach of their BPA Guidelines, clause 13.4 laid out by the BPA Code of Practice.

13.4 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.

Therefore, Parking eye has not observed the grace period outlined in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice

3, Parking Eye allege that the driver was at the giveaway leaving the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds and therefore alleging the driver had overstayed by 52 seconds. Parking Eye’s camera takes images of cars leaving and entering the car park. There is no evidence/allegation provided by Parking Eye that the car was still parked in the car park after 6pm.

4. Parking Eye are in breach of their BPA guidelines, which they are supposed to abide by in order to request information from DVLA. Clause 12.3 of the BPA code of Practice states the following:

12.3 You must use data from the DVLA only to carry out the parking control and enforcement activity for which you requested the data. You must not act as an agent to get data from the DVLA on behalf of a third party (for example a landowner or agent), unless that third party becomes a member of the AOS and meets all the compliance conditions. If you do not keep to the Code requirement this could lead to your membership of the AOS and of the BPA being suspended or terminated.

As requesting personal data from the DVLA for an alleged over stay of 52 seconds in the car park is not “reasonable cause”

Appendix 1.pdf

letter from mp evidence scan.pdf

That will end up in the bin unread

the simpest appeal is to state that

"there was no overstay as the time paid for is the time you are allowed to PARK.

PE have no evidence that the time the vehicle was PARKED was beyond the time paid for.

Any stay is measured by the entry and exit cameras and the time taken to manoeuvre the car to exit the car park is not part of the parking period so cannot be included in the time allowed, agreed and paid for

. There is case law on this matter so PE know they have no claim against the appellant.

It is also contrary to the 10 minutes minimum grace period agreed to by PE as part of their membership of the BPA so no breach of the terms offered by implication that are part of every PE contract has occurred".

keep it simple.

It doesn't really matter what POPLA say anyway,

PE are stuffed should they want to take it further,

courts and tribunals have already decided that.

@ericsbrother

just to confirm should I send the MP letter I attached with my appeal and as I have already declared to Parking Eye I was the driver , then in my appeal via POPLA so I now state the same?

the letter you posted up here is not worth sending to anyone.

Read the comments and rewrite.

Your letter to your MP is a complaint about the DVLA using a stock reply that doesn't answer your request for information, not about the parking event, the appeal or anything else

. They are 2 different things

Too much waffle, use EB's wording above and copy that to your MP. Most MP's are none too bright when it comes to PPCs and rogue Capita subsidiaries like PE and their shenanigans.

You need to focus the MP as EB states on the DVLA issue. The parking overstay will not end well for PE if they did take you to court, the team on CAG will help kill it dead.

Thanks all for your advice,

I Have edited the original letter and removed majority of the text and added the text from Erircsbrothers post above.

Can you please confirm the latest version below is OK?

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

["]I’m writing to you to express my concern over the unfair PCN sent to the keeper of the car, number plate: XXXX XXX.

There are many points where Parking Eye has not observed the Code of Practice as laid out by the BPA, June 2015 version 6.

Therefore, I am challenging this Parking Charge Notice. The most important reasons being:

1. Parking Eye’s allegation that the driver was at the giveway leaving the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds. According to the driver’s and the passengers clock they left the car park before 6pm. The driver paid £4.50 for parking on Saturday 26th August which covered parking charges costs on the day. (see Appx 1 and 2)

There was no overstay in the car park as the time paid for is the time you are allowed to PARK.

2. Furthermore Parking Eye have no evidence that the time the vehicle was PARKED was beyond the time paid for.

Any stay is measured by the entry and exit cameras and the time taken to manoeuvre the car to exit the car park is not part of the parking period so cannot be included in the time allowed, agreed and paid for

Therefore, there was no overstay in the car park as the time paid for is the time allowed to park.

The above reasons make it very evident that Parking Eye have imposed parking charges on the driver which are clearly unjustified.

Yours faithfully

Also to confirm should I not include reference to clause 13.4 BPA Code of Practice

sorry guys, can you please confirm whether I should submit this appeal letter or the one above? Please feel free to edit accordingly, Thanks

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I’m writing to you to express my concern over the unfair PCN sent to the keeper of the car, number plate: XXXX XXX.

There are many points where Parking Eye has not observed the Code of Practice as laid out by the BPA, June 2015 version 6.

Therefore, I am challenging this Parking Charge Notice. The most important reasons being:

1. Parking Eye’s allegation that the driver was at the giveway leaving the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds. According to the driver’s and the passengers clock they left the car park before 6pm. The driver paid £4.50 for parking on Saturday 26th August which covered parking charges costs on the day. (see Appx 1 and 2)

There was no overstay in the car park as the time paid for is the time you are allowed to PARK.

2. Furthermore Parking Eye have no evidence that the time the vehicle was PARKED was beyond the time paid for.

Any stay is measured by the entry and exit cameras and the time taken to manoeuvre the car to exit the car park is not part of the parking period so cannot be included in the time allowed, agreed and paid for

Therefore, there was no overstay in the car park as the time paid for is the time allowed to park.

3. In addition the allegation made by Parking Eye is in breach of their BPA Guidelines, clause 13.4 laid out by the BPA Code of Practice.

13.4 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

The above reasons make it very evident that Parking Eye have imposed parking charges on the driver which are clearly unjustified.

Yours faithfully

" concern", "unfair"

Sounds like some local council spokesperson waffling on about some major injustice they have demoted to cover up their incompetence.

Use bold language that cannot be misunderstood

As you have identified yourself earlier on don't bother with the keeper bit,

say the NTK sent to me, it is truthful and doesn't make it look like you are suddenly trying to shift a responsibility responsibility.

So, you are appealing the charge number xxxxxxxx issued by PE on the xxth of month 2017 for the following reasons:-

don't say there was no overstay in the car park,

that is a slippery slope argument to say that you paid the prescribed fee to park for x hours and you were parked for less than that time.

As PE's camera system only records entry and exit there is no true record of how long the vehicle was actually parked and it is denied that the actual time parked was longer than the paid for period.

Then go on about the BPA CoP and at the end drop the bit about driver,

again you are not differentiating as YOU are appealing for your own sake, you cant appeal on behalf of anyone else

@ericsbrother Thanks, hope the draft below is good to send?

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I’m writing to you to appeal the charge under POPLA Ref: xxxxxxx issued by Parking Eye for the following reasons: -

1. Parking Eye allege that the vehicle (xxxxxx) was at the giveway leaving the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds. According to mine and the passengers clock we left the car park before 6pm.

I paid £4.50 for parking on Saturday 26th August which covered parking charges costs on the day (see Appx 1 and 2). I paid the prescribed fee to park the vehicle until 6pm on the day, but I was actually parked up until before 6pm

2. Furthermore, Parking Eye have no evidence that the time the vehicle was PARKED was beyond the time paid for.

As PE's camera system only, records entry and exit there is no true record of how long the vehicle was actually parked and it is denied that the actual time parked was longer than the paid for period.

Any stay is measured by the entry and exit cameras and the time taken to manoeuvre the car to exit the car park is not part of the parking period so cannot be included in the time allowed, agreed and paid for.

3. In addition, the allegation made by Parking Eye is in breach of their BPA Guidelines, clause 13.4 laid out by the BPA Code of Practice.

13.4 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

The above reasons make it very evident that Parking Eye have imposed parking charges which are clearly unjustified.

Yours faithfully

FHi Amane.

After reading your latest version, it still does not comply with EB's suggestion.

He said to ignore mentioning that there was no overstay in the car park.

You are trying to win at POPLA so make it difficult for them to reject it.

The cameras only show when you arrive and leave not how long you were parked .

You could not have been parked for 4 hours and 50 secs as you had to first of all find a place to park, shop, go and pay for your ticket then drive from the your parking spot to the exit.

There is no way you could do all that in 50 seconds overstay that they claim therefore you were not parked for more than 4 hours.

In any event the BPA guidelines s13.4 states

-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.

So even if you had parked for 4 hours and 50 secs.

you were still covered by the BPA rules so no offence committed.

As this parking charge was issued in breach of The BPA guidelines

PE had no legitimate reason to ask the DVLA for your details

there should have been no need for this to ever have come before POPLA.

Thus the charge should be cancelled.

also understand that paying the fee creates the contract so you are entitled to get what you paid for.

This is 4 hours of parking without interference from PE and they havent stuck to their side of the bargain.

They will have to show that you were parked longer than that time or they are just harassing you.

As they use ANPR on the entrance they have no method of identifying any other movement within the car park

if you drove round for 3 hours and then paid for an hour

they would claim you were parked for 4 hours when no such thing happened.

That is why arguing about an OVERSTAY is very different to arguing about a PARKING EVENT.

@ lookingforinfo and ericsbrother, Thanks!

I have edited the appeal letter further to your feedback. I just have a couple of more queries?

• just to confirm there is no point in disputing that according my clock I left the car park before 6pm, and to insinuate their clock must be wrong?

• Furthermore, I have just noticed Parking Eye has incorrectly recorded on the driver’s online statement posted on their website that I had paid parking charges for 4hrs 40 minutes (see Appx 1), This is incorrect, as the parking charges sign in the car park state that cost of parking between 8am – 6pm on a Saturday is £4.50 which is what I paid. According to the ANPR I entered the car park at 1pm and 26 seconds, therefore the £4.50 would cover parking for 5hrs , is there any value in stating this?

Dear POPLA adjudicator,

I’m writing to you to appeal the charge under POPLA Ref: xxxxxx, issued by Parking Eye for the following reasons: -

1. I paid £4.50 for parking on Saturday 26th August which covered parking charges costs on the day. I paid the prescribed fee to park the vehicle until 6pm on the day. As parking costs on a Saturday from 8am-6pm is £4.50 (see Appx 1).

2. Furthermore, Parking Eye have no evidence that the time the vehicle was PARKED was beyond the time paid for.

As PE's camera system only, records entry and exit there is no true record of how long the vehicle was actually parked and it is denied that the actual time parked was longer than the paid for period. Any stay is measured by the entry and exit cameras and the time taken to manoeuvre the car to exit the car park is not part of the parking period so cannot be included in the time allowed, agreed and paid for.

Therefore, I could not have been parked for 5hrs as I had to first of all find a place to park, shop, go and pay for my ticket then drive from the parking spot to the exit.

3. In addition, the allegation made by Parking Eye is in breach of their BPA Guidelines, clause 13.4 laid out by the BPA Code of Practice.

13.4 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

As this parking charge was issued in breach of The BPA guidelines PE had no legitimate reason to ask the DVLA for my details there should have been no need for this to ever have come before POPLA. Thus the charge should be cancelled.

Yours faithfully

Appendix 1.pdf

and on point 1 you continue thus no breach of contract has occurred

and on pint 2 you are entiled to enjoy this without interference by PE, which their claim for monies due to a breach is

This is the entire point of the reason for appeal and you seem to be shying away from it

Thanks once again. - also can you please look at the queries below.

• just to confirm there is no point in disputing that according my clock I left the car park before 6pm, and to insinuate their clock must be wrong?

• Furthermore,

I have just noticed Parking Eye has incorrectly recorded on the driver’s online statement posted on their website that I had paid parking charges for 4hrs 40 minutes (see Appx 1),

This is incorrect, as the parking charges sign in the car park state that cost of parking between 8am – 6pm on a Saturday is £4.50 which is what I paid.

According to the ANPR I entered the car park at 1pm and 26 seconds, therefore the £4.50 would cover parking for 5hrs ,

is there any value in stating this?

Yes you are right Amane-do not insinuate their clock was wrong.

How much you paid and whatever time they calculated for your payment is not the problem. Your time in the car park expired at 6pm according to their regs. To park beyond that time required a payment of £5.50.

Please do not complicate matters-you have an open and closed case against them if you do not confuse the issues.

1] their anpr system only records your arrival and exit not the length of time you parked.

2] even if you did overstay for 52 seconds which you don't accept, you are more than covered by the grace period according to BPA guidelines 13.4

what your clock says is of no relevance whatsoever. that has been decided by a parking tribunal so will be considered in ther same way a court precedent is.

Keep it simple and keep it consise. As for PE's claim then rebut it by indicating that in line xx of their submission they state ...... but the prescribed fee for a saturday is £4.50 all day so there can never be an overstay and therefore no breach of contract. You have sent pictures of the signage to support this havent you? if not add them

Thanks once again. - also can you please look at the queries below.

 

• just to confirm there is no point in disputing that according my clock I left the car park before 6pm, and to insinuate their clock must be wrong?

 

• Furthermore,

I have just noticed Parking Eye has incorrectly recorded on the driver’s online statement posted on their website that I had paid parking charges for 4hrs 40 minutes (see Appx 1),

 

 

This is incorrect, as the parking charges sign in the car park state that cost of parking between 8am – 6pm on a Saturday is £4.50 which is what I paid.

 

 

According to the ANPR I entered the car park at 1pm and 26 seconds, therefore the £4.50 would cover parking for 5hrs ,

is there any value in stating this?