No notice at entrance to ParkingEye Car park .. ** Won **

[Jessicajil]

Hello,

 

On the 25th November at 19.05 (after dark) we parked in a little car-park opposite Wickes in Hove which is on the Davigdor Retail Park. The small car-park had had a large re-cycling bin unit in it, plus other re-cycling bins. The car-park was marked off from the road by a series of yellow hoops. There were no signs to say we couldn't park there. There are other car-parks nearby which do have little yellow signs. see picture 01. Using Google I was also able to show that there are no signs at all on the entrance side of the car park we were in see 02

 

When we got back, we noticed that there was a small yellow sign behind the re-cycling unit, in a shady place under a tree so it was not lit up by the street lights, which said that we were not allowed to park there for more than 2 hours. I can't remember what the notice said exactly .. ie was it a penalty charge or a parking charge which they were threatening us with if we stayed longer. I'm going to ask my son to pop round and photograph the sign for me, and to check for any other signs. Photos 04 and 05 show the siting of the notice behind the large recycle and under a tree.

 

I have received a PCN from ParkingEye. To start with it is not addressed properly as it does not have my name correctly, having used part of one of my middle names as a surname.

 

It says it is a parking charge notice for Davigdor Road Retail Park

 

It says the signage is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throughout the car-park, but, as you can see from the photos, this just isn't so for the car park I was in.

 

The car was driven by my husband and I who are both insured to drive it. I am its keeper.

 

Does the Protection of Freedoms Act schedule 4 affect my case?

 

I don't know who owns the land. The point I took image 01 from Google is public road.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Do a simple appeal to parking eye. It will get rejected.

 

When it does come back here so we can help you win at popla

[Jessicajil]

Thank you

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

No probs, you can do it online, but also send copy in post

[ericsbrother]

It would be helpful to kinow where their cameras are that captured your number plate.You can probably determine this by the positioning of your vehicle in the images they usually enclose with the demandthis will help you should parking eye reject your appeal as they have probably made assumptions on the movement of traffic in that area and how that then means you have parked in a way that suits their purpose but does not match reality. I dont doubt that PE will reject your appeal-if they didint how would they make a living- but when they do you will get a POPLA number and you can then appeal to an adjudicator who has no connection to the company and you can put a range of arguments to support your case. Comeback here at the appropriate time and you will be given the current best practice.

[esmerobbo]

ericsbrother is right find where those cameras are, as you can't make them out in the pictures you posted.

[Jessicajil]

It would be helpful to know where their cameras are .

I have added another photo (07) which shows the position of the cameras as seen fro the same viewpoint as 01 was taken from. We noticed them as we drove out of the car park.

[esmerobbo]

That looks like its mounted on the signed car park but is pointing at the entrance to the unsigned one is that right?

[dw190]

Surely if the name on the letter is incorrect the op can return it say opened in error and not known at the address.

 

If its done as near as possible to the required date for notification from fixed cameras then the correct notice will be ssued late.

[Jessicajil]

Yes, though there may be others for the other car-parks. I will try to find out.

[ericsbrother]

It is not clear from your images where the public highway ends and the private land starts. Are the ohter parking areas owned by different entities or are they part of a single estate? Good idea to look at the other car parks and see what, if anything it says about restrictions on parking in them and whether you would be captured on PE's cameras in passing or passing through.

[Jessicajil]

where the public highway ends and the private land starts. Are the ohter parking areas owned by different entities or are they part of a single estate?

 

I have been assuming it ends level with the building on the right in image 01, but I may be wrong about that. Looking at the signs, it appears that ParkingEye controls all the car parks off that bit of road. I will see if I can find out from the Land Registry

[ericsbrother]

Get your letter of appeal into PE stating that there were no signs visible so no contract entered into by yourself. You wouldnt have used the car park if signs were clearly visible to a motorist entering the car park in their normal driving position.

As an aside, PE have just put up new giant signs at the entrance to a local store after betting their butts kicked using the same defence-ie signs not visible to motorist on entry. They really cant hope to win at a proper court but better to stop it sooner than that. They will probably say that you can see signs and that contract is formed but you will get your POPLA number. You will also get about 35 sheets of scary writing from them in an attempt to get you to give up and pay up. Ignore it, everyone get that, even when PE are told to cancel the charge by the store. You then appeal to POPLA using the sign argumant along with requirement of proof of contract with landowner or occupier that allows PE to claim damages in their own name. Most of PE's older contracts with site owner dont have that so they cannot answer and your appeal succeeds.

[Jessicajil]

Get your letter of appeal into PE stating that there were no signs visible so no contract entered into by yourself. You wouldnt have used the car park if signs were clearly visible to a motorist entering the car park in their normal driving position.

As an aside, PE have just put up new giant signs at the entrance to a local store after betting their butts kicked using the same defence-ie signs not visible to motorist on entry. They really cant hope to win at a proper court but better to stop it sooner than that. They will probably say that you can see signs and that contract is formed but you will get your POPLA number. You will also get about 35 sheets of scary writing from them in an attempt to get you to give up and pay up. Ignore it, everyone get that, even when PE are told to cancel the charge by the store. You then appeal to POPLA using the sign argument along with requirement of proof of contract with landowner or occupier that allows PE to claim damages in their own name. Most of PE's older contracts with site owner dont have that so they cannot answer and your appeal succeeds.

Thank you! I have written to say there are no signs at the entrance to that particular car-park, and that the sign is hidden behind large recycling facilities, aan sent the photos to show that that is so. My son sent me some photos taken in daylight where you can see the sign from an angle, and, being yellow, it shows up. But from a car, driving in in the dark it is hidden.

How do I find out what their contract is?

[Jessicajil]

Image 10 which I have just attached was taken in daylight from the entrance to the car-park. Obviously from a car, more of it is obscured, and at night it is in a very dark area under the tree which you can see.

[ericsbrother]

They wont tell you what their contract is and that is the killer point as they wont tell POPLA either so when you get your POPLA code from PE you use taht as part of your appela. Dont do your POPLA appeal online otherwise sending images is difficult but come back here and you will be given the wording to use for that appela to go with the other points. The contract question usually does it and if it doesnt that is not the end of what you can do to fight them.

[kirkbyinfurnesslad]

Loss is also a killer point:)

[Jessicajil]

come back here and you will be given the wording to use for that appela to go with the other points. .

 

Thank you very much, yes I will.

Jess

[ericsbrother]

see the post on PE losing 3 court cases in 1 day. 2 of them were based on signage so when you get a POPLA code you will know one lineof reasoning they cannot ignore.

[Jessicajil]

see the post on PE losing 3 court cases in 1 day.

The Chichester one looks identical to my position. I'll see if I can get the case notes.

[Jessicajil]

. You then appeal to POPLA using the sign argument along with requirement of proof of contract with landowner or occupier that allows PE to claim damages in their own name..

I have had the appeal on the grounds of no notices visible turned down by ParkingEye ( what a surprise!), though the letter is very polite saying that (as a goodwill gesture) they have extended the discount period for an extra 14 days from the date of the letter. They say that the appeal was unsuccessful because 'valid/sufficient evidence was not provided to show that the terms and conditions, stipulated on the signage, were not broken. They go on to say We are fully compliant with British Parking Association regulations on signage and confirm that there is adequate signage at this site that is visible, appropriately located, clear and legible.

So now I need advice as to what I put on the POPLA. Do I have to write to P-Eye asking for the proof of contract with the landowner or occupier that you mentioned, or do I ask that that be supplied to POPLA?

I am trying to get the case-notes for the Chichester 'no signage' case.

[DBC]

The killer is always no genuine pre-estimate of loss. You must include that. That statement of theirs " the appeal was unsuccessful because 'valid/sufficient evidence was not provided to show that the terms and conditions, stipulated on the signage, were not broken." is just stupid. How can you prove a negative?

[Jessicajil]

I went back this evening to take some photos to show what it looks like at night, since that's when we were in the car-park. The photos show how dark the car park is and how the notice is not lit and is hidden behind the bins.

 

 

I hope to have the case-notes for the Chichester case tomorrow, and with then do the POPLA form.

[ericsbrother]

The contract and proof/estimate of loss are the best ones for PE at POPLA. Follow that by inadequate signage so no contract entered into or the terms can be considered unfair as you had no chance to consider any offer.

Thie goodwill gesture indicate to me that they know they are onto a loser so hope you dont give them the trouble

[Jessicajil]

Thank you for all the help given here, especially from ericsbrother

From all that I have been told/found out, I have put together a submission to POPLA, please could you cast your eye over it for me to make sure there are no howlers? The fig numbers are not the same as those I have uploaded here, so ignore them, as it's the wording I want to check? Thank you!

 

Reasons for appeal.

Background. The car park is one of three near some stores. Fig 01 There are signs at the entrance to two of the car parks but none in the car park we used. Fig 02 The car-park we used has a re-cycling centre in it.

1. In the absence of evidence that the camera used by ParkingEye is implemented with timing and sync loss logs then any images developed by the system cannot be trusted. Any use of the data collected as evidence of fact is wrong, and ParkingEye have no evidence as to how long the car was parked in the car-park.

2. The letter from ParkingEye states that there is signage clearly displayed at the entrance to the car park and throughout it. This is untrue. There is no sign at the entrance to the car park. Fig 03

3. ParkingEye say that there is adequate signage on this site, that is visible appropriately located, clear and legible. The sign in the car park is hidden behind a large re-cycling bin, so is not appropriately located. It is only partially visible in the day-time Fig 04, and is not visible after dark since it is not illuminated. Fig 05. Therefore there can be no implied contract between myself and ParkingEye and therefore no breach of contract. The absence of signage at the entrance of a car park, and obscured signs within it were the reason for a recent appeal against ParkingEye being upheld in 3JD00565 at Colchester county court (ParkingEye v Rogers)

4. The one sign in the car park Fig 06 states that a parking charge notice will be issued for a “failure to comply” with the terms of parking. This wording indicates that the charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I would submit that the parking charge of £85 does not reflect the ParkingEye’s loss, and is therefore not enforceable.

5. In the absence of evidence that ParkingEye have a contract to collect monies on behalf of the owner/s, I have to assume that there is no such contract.

6. Since this is a free car park there is no loss to the landowner so any charge is punitive which has been held in the High Court to be unenforceable.

7. The BPA rules state "You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for." The one sign present does not state this. There is just an icon of a camera in the bottom of the frame of the notice which does not include any statement as to its use.