Is it worth the POPLA appeal - Parking Eye 2X PCN's **WON BOTH**

[beatthesystem]

Hello,

 

Would be extremely grateful if I could get some feedback on the following please.

 

Received 2 parking charge notices from Parking Eye back in November for non purchase of a parking ticket at a car park in Manchester.

 

 

I appealed the charge for the following reasons.

 

I believed I'd paid the charges online via 'Pay by Phone', however I'd actually paid for the wrong car park.

'Pay by phone' is a method I often use for the is car park when I have no change

but the number which was stored on my app was for a SIP carpark (literally 100 metres further up the road)

which I'd last paid for by 'pay by phone' (Parking Eye was the one I'd used just before that so it had overridden their car park number).

 

I didn't realise and paid as usual with my credit card.

The price of £2.20 came up which is what I pay for the Parking Eye car park

and the description came up as Rochdale Road which is the same as the Parking Eye car park.

 

I actually did this for 5 days and honestly had no idea I was paying for the wrong car park

(strangely enough Parking Eye have only sent charges for 2 of the 5 days which is in a way a slight form of mismanagement,

perhaps another angle to use?).

 

 

I only realised on the sixth day when I was loading something on to my back seat and caught sight of the car park number

and clicked it wasn't the same as that on my e-mail receipts).

 

 

On checking I realised I'd been paying for the SIP car park and immediately changed the number and paid for the right car park.

I've continued to use this car park as it's the most practical option for work.

 

I appealed the 2 charges with Parking Eye quoting the honest mistake I'd made

and providing them with payment statements from 'pay by phone'.

 

 

As a regular user of this car park for many years I was hoping for a bit of common sense and compassion from them,

at the end of the day I was paying for a car park that I wasn't even using.

Of course I offered to recompense the payments that had gone to SIP.

 

However 2 letters arrived today stating that the appeals were unsuccessful.

I wonder if they've even read the reasons behind the issue as the wording says.

 

 

'Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event,

despite there being payment methods available on the day in question'.

 

Of course no parking was purchased because stupidly I was paying for the wrong car park.

 

The letter gives the option to appeal to POPLA but with the barb of if the appeal is unsuccessful

then I have to pay the full amount £200 total rather than £120.

 

Could someone please advise whether they feel it's worth the appeal

or will it just get thrown out and potentially costing me an extra £80.

 

Thanks.

[dx100uk]

1st go contact your credit card sompany and get those wronly directed payments back.

 

 

you wont get anywhere with a compassionate appeal to PE

and to be honest, I don't think popla will swallow that anyway.

 

 

you need another angle.

 

 

is everything compliant with the site like signs[planning perm for them]

etc etc

[beatthesystem]

Thanks for your reply dx100uk.

 

Rang the credit card company and advised to speak to 'Pay by phone' and request the refund from them. If no joy then call them back.

Wasn't the most helpful of people.

 

I should have really come on here before even the initial appeal. From what I can see PE seem to be a bunch of parasitical bar stewards who were quite happy to take my money in the previous years but jump all over you when you make an honest mistake.

 

With regards to another angle.

I'll take some photos Monday of the signage, car park in general and also of the payment machine which is extremely poorly lit when I arrive in the morning. There's 4 different signs I think, 1 at the entrance next to the pay machine, 1 on a post, 1 on the wall of an adjoining pub and 1 another wall which I'm not sure what that's attached to. They seem pretty well covered in terms of wording, size, placement.

Not sure how to find out about the planning permission, any ideas?

Please advise procedure for posting images etc.

 

Only other thing is that the ANPR photo's don't show the driver clearly (to be honest you can't even tell anyone is even in the car) but maybe I've invalidated that route with the initial appeal.

 

Still find it strange that I only received charges for 2 out of the 5 days, especially when the 2 days charged for aren't even consecutive. Would querying that just be a dead end and a potential for 3 further notices?

 

Hope you can all help to get this one overturned, it's a Christmas present I don't need.

 

Thanks.

[armadillo71]

Thanks for your reply dx100uk.

 

Rang the credit card company and advised to speak to 'Pay by phone' and request the refund from them. If no joy then call them back.

Wasn't the most helpful of people.

 

I should have really come on here before even the initial appeal. Yes From what I can see PE seem to be a bunch of parasitical bar stewards Yes again who were quite happy to take my money in the previous years but jump all over you when you make an honest mistake. Yes yet again...

 

With regards to another angle.

I'll take some photos Monday of the signage, car park in general and also of the payment machine which is extremely poorly lit when I arrive in the morning. There's 4 different signs I think, 1 at the entrance next to the pay machine, 1 on a post, 1 on the wall of an adjoining pub and 1 another wall which I'm not sure what that's attached to. They seem pretty well covered in terms of wording, size, placement. Really? Let's see the photos.

Not sure how to find out about the planning permission, any ideas?

Please advise procedure for posting images etc.

 

Only other thing is that the ANPR photo's don't show the driver clearly (to be honest you can't even tell anyone is even in the car) but maybe I've invalidated that route with the initial appeal. You have identified yourself as the driver, so the POFA is irrelevant unfortunately .

 

Still find it strange that I only received charges for 2 out of the 5 days, especially when the 2 days charged for aren't even consecutive. Would querying that just be a dead end and a potential for 3 further notices? It shows yet again that ANPR is not fit for purpose.

 

Hope you can all help to get this one overturned, it's a Christmas present I don't need.

 

Thanks.

 

 

At POPLA you will be demanding to see proof, through sight of contract, that PE have lawful authority from the landowner to issue and pursue parking charge notices at this site.

 

 

That is the current winner at POPLA.

[beatthesystem]

Hello,

 

Finally got some photo's of the car park.

Please have a look through see if you can spot anything.

 

Things to note.

Car Park has no actual lighting of it's own.

It's relying on public street lighting which is facing away from the car park.

This means early morning/late night many of the signs are barely readable

and the displays at the pay machine have no illumination so it's extremely difficult to read, impossible if you're visually impaired.

 

One of the signs is part blocked by overgrown weeds, unable to read clearly.

 

One of the signs part covers a vent from the adjoining pub.

i asked at the adjoining pub and they had no idea who owned the land.

 

I've dug around a bit and the post code which the car park is located on is M4 4HY.

The Marble Arch pub on the adjoining left of the car park is no 73 Rochdale Rd,

the Nip Inn convenience store on the adjoining right is no 85 Rochdale Rd.

 

75 Rochdale Road comes up on Parkopedia as an unknown pay and display car park,

I've attached a map.

 

However 75/77/79/81/83 doesn't seem to be registered as a car park under the Manchester City Council list of occupied business rate properties or it's local authority list.

 

OK enough of the waffle, have I got anything to go on please.

[beatthesystem]

The silence is deafening.

Got to be honest, not a great deal of help from you.

[armadillo71]

The silence is deafening.

Got to be honest, not a great deal of help from you.

 

Where are the pictures of the signage?

[ericsbrother]

you make a number of very valid reasons as to why no contract may be formed

and in an appeal to POPLA i would be saying that the signage is inadequate and incomprehensible due to all of the points you raise.

 

 

Also make an issue about the ownership of the land and demand that PE produce a copy of the assignment from the landowners to PE

that allows them to make civil claims in their own name.

 

 

I would also have a look at the land registry entry for the address

(if you phone them up and ask them for the actual registry entry number as you are having difficulty identifying it

they may well tell you the name and address of the plot and who owns it so you save £3 and get the correct info)

as there is a good chance that PE have signed a deal with a tenant there rather than LL and third party contracts arent worth a bean for PE.

 

Also, when you ask for help bear in mind we all do this in our own time and most people have been busy with relatives

and the like for the festive period.

 

 

there has to be quite a lot of self help as well so if people say get a picture of the signage

it is fairly important to do so as the siting, size, font size, colour etc of the signs

make a big difference to whether it is considered to be legible or confusing. just telling us what is written isnt enough.

[beatthesystem]

I just needed a bit of a steer to see am I flogging a dead horse or got a valid reason. Apologies for the shortness but the 14 day period is up today.

 

5 photo's attached, further 15 if you want to see them.

 

Found the following under the Manchester council list of properties getting small business relief rate, this would relate to the parking eye car park. Address given as Euro car park?

[beatthesystem]

Another 5 pics.

[armadillo71]

I just needed a bit of a steer to see am I flogging a dead horse or got a valid reason. Apologies for the shortness but the 14 day period is up today. 14 day period for what?

 

5 photo's attached, further 15 if you want to see them.

 

Found the following under the Manchester council list of properties getting small business relief rate, this would relate to the parking eye car park. Address given as Euro car park? This relates to what following?

 

You have your POPLA appeal in ericsbrothers post #8.

 

Inadequate signage and lack of standing.

 

And the Beavis case is not relevant in this case...

[beatthesystem]

Hello,

 

So a basic trial run would be.

1. I believe the signage and overall keep of the aforementioned car park to be inadequate and misleading for a number of key reasons.

a) The car park has no independent lighting and is reliant on illumination given by public highway lighting which faces away from the land. This means that in levels of extremely poor natural light eg. the time when my vehicle entered the car park that the signage is impossible to see clearly. A number of these signs are at particularly high levels and difficult to see even in clear daylight. Some of the 'small print' on these signs you need a magnifying device to see. For anyone who is visually or physically impaired this would be an even greater challenge. Images are provided as evidence of this.

b) The growth of wild weeds on the car park, which I believe to be Japanese Knotweed has inhibited the view of some of the signage and made clear reading of the sign impossible. Images are provided as evidence of this.

c) Illumination of the payment machine screen and keypad is non-existant outside daylight hours and therefore is actively encouraging the incorrect entering of registration numbers which of course benefits PE who will issue PCN's based on this.

Images are provided as evidence of this.

d) The car park is constantly contains rubbish which obscures the bay markings and obstructs the bays and again potentially provides a way of PE issuing PCN's.

On these points alone I would expect to PCN to be cancelled with immediate effect.

 

2.I also have concerns that PE have a legal contract with the owner of this land to allow them to make civil claims in their own name.

The only register on the Manchester City Council list of properties dated 1st Dec 2015 for this address, 73 Rochdale Road Manchester M4 4HY is for Euro Car Park adj 73 Rochdale Road Manchester M4 4HY. This I believe was the previous car park tenant for this property therefore giving reason that PE haven't correctly registered the usage of this land.

Please provide proof through sight of contract that PE have lawful authority from the landowner to issue and pursue parking charge notices at this site.

Please also provide proof that PE are also registered at this address under the correct business title as a small business and therefore able to trade accordingly.

I would expect if PE are unable to provide the above that the PCN's are cancelled forthwith.

 

Do I mention anything about my original reasons for appeal (paid incorrect car park on 'paybyphone')?

Do I mention anything about the ANPR being unfit for purpose as it only twice out of 5 days.

Which images do I attach?

 

Trying to attach of the small business rate thingy.

 

Hope you can help.

 

[ATTACH]60720[/ATTACH]

[ericsbrother]

your second point needs implifying to you demand sight of the contract between PE and the landowner

as you do not believe that there is a contract that assigns the right to make civil claims in their own name to PE.

(they dont like to show their contracts as many are flawed so you may well win by the non submission of critical proof)

 

they will have various rights by way of the contract but that can be with anyone so the critical bit is the right to sue in their own name.

 

The other things to mention about use of land,

 

 

ANPR not working properly should be saved for the future if you lose the POPLA appeal as they cant and wont look at these issues.

 

 

They will win you a court battle but not this so dont waste the ammunition.

[beatthesystem]

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

So for point 2 just demand sight of contract as stated by yourself below and keep the other stuff out. Any help with a strong statement would be great.

 

Do you think it's then good to go or does it need some fluffing out?

 

Hoping all on CAG have a good new year.

[ericsbrother]

When you fluff things out it gives room for argument so simple is best.

so common wording would be "the appellant does not believe that PE has a contract with the landowner where the landowner assigns the right to PE to make claims and take legal action in their own name and demands strict proof by sight of this contract between the landowner and PE"

Reason for this is quite often the contract is with a managing agent or tenant and no valid for making claims against another party (ie motorist)

[beatthesystem]

Thanks for your help ericsbrother.

POPLA appeal has now been submitted, fingers crossed.

Will update on the outcome.

[beatthesystem]

Hello Everybody,

 

Back again unfortunately.

Just had back the PE evidence for the POPLA appeals.

As expected they've sent images of the images in full daylight glory and nothing of the sign with the plants in front of it or the unlit ticketing machines or signs.

They also attached my original appeal on the basis that I'd paid the wrong car park (and strangely evidence that this was the case)???

 

How do I blank out info on a PDF? I've managed to do it on some text but where they've attached copied of docs I can't do it.

I'd like to attach but obviously there's some personal data that you usually advise to blank out.

 

Please advise so I can get this posted and hopefully we can pick some holes in it.

 

Cheers.

[ericsbrother]

so no evidence of having the right to enter contracts and make legal claims in their own name then?

You willll need to rebut their arguments about quality of signage and possibly send images of the signs at the entrance and make notes about location of entrances to other properties and say that this is confusing and the signage is insufficient under the circumstances. Check that their signs are not just stock photos if you can find differences between their photos and the real sign, such as scratches, graffiti, etc. In sghort you have to generate a doubt that is strong enough (but the lack of proof of contract should be paramount in POPLA's consideration)

[dx100uk]

upload

 

dx

[beatthesystem]

Hello,

 

Just working on blanking the PDF now.

 

Here is a copy of what they stated re. contracts.

 

Authority

ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other

contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.

 

Looks like waffle to me but can someone more knowledgeable decipher. No actual evidence of any written authority within the pack.

 

Cheers.

[beatthesystem]

I also love the way the PE clampits have artificially lightened up the ANPR photo of my cars arrival to make it look like it was clear daylight and not pitch black as was the case (and shown in the departure photo's).

[armadillo71]

Hello,

 

Just working on blanking the PDF now.

 

Here is a copy of what they stated re. contracts.

 

Authority

ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other

contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.

 

Looks like waffle to me but can someone more knowledgeable decipher. No actual evidence of any written authority within the pack.

 

Cheers.

 

 

That's what they always say.....

 

But they never prove it.

[ericsbrother]

the time of the event will sort that one out but make sure you mention that you do not have the benefit of infra red night vision.

[beatthesystem]

OK, finally got to grips with amending the PDF (great free tool on pdfbuddy, no doubt I'll end up with a load of spam though).

 

Images from PE show the signage in clear daylight and also shows the sign that is obscured by weeds miraculously clear of them (even though it's still obscured by weeds).

No evidence of a contract.

Doctored photo.

No picture of the ticketing machine.

Evidence that I'd paid for the SIP car park in error instead of theirs, what do they car though (magic car can be in 2 places at once).

 

See if you can pick out anything else and then we can plan the additional retort to POPLA.

 

Thanks Erics Brother/DX/Mr.Dillo.

PE_POPLA_appeal_1.pdf

[ericsbrother]

We will need to know the names of the pieces of land so we can investigate. Also ask the local council whether PE or the landowner has got permission to put their signs up under the advertising hoardings display regs of the Town and Country Planning Act. No PP then the signs are illegal and no contract can ever be formed