Parking Eye windscreen PCN - appealed now at popla - Long Eaton Asda

[newmoses]

Can someone with some legal knowledge please inform on this letter?.

 

My friend got a pcn in Long Eaton Asda from Parking eye.

I challenged the pcn for them as I challenged 2 from Parking eye.1 was Asda Long Eaton, the other Asda Arnold. Both were won at POPLA.

 

I requested a copy of Parking Eye's contract with the legal land owner.

They failed to send it, and refused to appeal. It went to POPLA, and I am now awaiting their result.

 

 I also requested Parking eye's planning permission to Erewash Borough Council to erect and use cctv/anpr cameras and signage.

 

I based this on the ICO code of practice, page 36,section5 which reads:- 

Page 36,section 5.updated Oct.2017.

 

Given the significant amounts of information that ANPR systems are able to collect, it is important that individuals are informed that their personal data is being processed. The best way to do this is through signage explaining that ANPR recording is taking place and, if possible to do so, the name of the data controller collecting the information. While it is a challenge to inform motorists that they are being monitored, there are methods you can use, such as the Town and Country Planning Act (control of advertisements) Regulations 2007, to help provide this information (see section 9.1.2 for further detail).Parking Eye replied saying they do not need planning permission.

 

Parking Eye also stated,

they enforce for Loading bays ,verges, hatches etc, but no mention about disabled badge holder bays or mother and child bays.

They also refused to send a copy of a contract between Parking Eye, and the legal land owner where Asda is situated. It is Midland Street, Long Eaton.

 

Parking Eye also said in their info. pack to POPLA that they have authority to enforce parking regulations, even though they have not submitted this to POPLA.

Doesn't the BPA ,section 7 say that parking operators have to have a contract with the landowner to enforce parking regulations?.

 

 Parking Eye ended up sending this letter to my friend, so I said I would post it on CAG for advice.

 

 Are Parking Eye acting in a legal capacity or not?.

Do they have to abide by the town and country Planning Act?.

As they are offering a service.

 

Do they have to submit material requested in a FoI request?.

 

 Any help, advice, legal knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

[dx100uk]

seems like you've entered into alot of pointless letter tennis and probably ID'd the driver.

 

please complete this:

 

and scan up both sides of ALL letters in/out to one mass PDF in date order.

 

remember to carefully redact any/all ref numbers , stuff in the margins or reg numbers etc that PE can use to ID you posting here.

 

read our upload guide carefully.

 

dx

 

 

[newmoses]

The driver received the parking eye pcn on the windscreen of the car whilst shopping in Asda.Date of event was 21/04/22.Date issued was 11/05/22.

 

 

docs1.pdf

[dx100uk]

fill out the sticky please too

 

dx

 

[dx100uk]

god what have you done by entering into all this pointless letter tennis?

and wherever did you get the idea to send off a FOI to them...

NEVER RESPOND unless a letter of claim comes!!

 

their letter states:

Your details have been provided to us by the registered keeper, naming you as the driver of the above vehicle at the time of the parking event...

 

so the registered keeper dobbed him in as the driver or you did by sending silly letter tennis

 

we need everything upload now, and try and rotate it please!!

[lookinforinfo]

On what grounds did you challenge them on previous occasions.Did they  provide you with the land owners contract on any previous occasion, And is this PCN issued for the same reason as the others were?

 

As far as I can see PE are correct when they say they do not have to reply to FOI queries. Check out the FOI regs. as to who has to reply to a FOI request.

Most parking companies do not provide contracts to motorists with PCNs until they are at the Court stage for commercial reasons. You could ask Asda if they would provide it.

 

Please read the Town and Country regs, for advertisements as each car park is different and will depend on how long there has been parking signs there and whether planning has been granted and when, as well  if planning has not been requested.

[brassnecked]

So its parking in a Parent and Child Bay so can't be ANPR as an entry and exit camera can't say whether you have a child in the car or not so was it a windscreen Parking Charge Notice. Might be other grounds to challenge. so can you clarify how the initial PCN was given please

[dx100uk]

windscreen as in the title...

8 hours ago, newmoses said:

The driver received the parking eye pcn on the windscreen of the car whilst shopping in Asda.Date of event was 21/04/22.Date issued was 11/05/22.

 

[brassnecked]

Thanks DX so operator, and deffo not ANPR.

[newmoses]

The info I have to date is that the driver of the vehicle was shopping in Asda and parked in a mother and toddler bay.

 

When the driver came back to their car, there was the pcn on the windscreen.

 

The driver ignored the pcn, and later received the NTK.

Neither the driver/RK, nor myself have named the driver.

 

Parking Eye have obviously got the RK details from DVLA, and assumed the RK and driver are one and the same.

 

 I tried to answer the sticky, but it won't let me type anything in.

[honeybee13]

Have you copied and pasted the questions from the sticky into your thread here?Then you can add the answers for us. 

 

HB

[dx100uk]

10 hours ago, dx100uk said:

their letter states:

Your details have been provided to us by the registered keeper, naming you as the driver of the above vehicle at the time of the parking event...

 

so the registered keeper dobbed him in as the driver or you did by sending silly letter tennis

 

we need everything upload now, and try and rotate it please!!

 

[lookinforinfo]

It is a pity that they know who the driver was as the PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts.Had they not known that they would have great difficulty winning in Court should they decide to go. it is now much more likely that they will go knowing who the driver is.

Which is why  we do not reccommend appealing.

[newmoses]

The driver totally ignored the windscreen pcn, and got a NTK some 23 days later.Parking Eye are lying when they say the driver has been identified.The driver has not been identified to this date.

[FTMDave]

As you can tell from the regulars' reactions, you've gone about this differently from how we normally do.

 

However, if the appeal is with POPLA - it's a matter of waiting for the result then taking it from there.

[lookinforinfo]

You say the driver has not been identified.

you say you challenged the PCN.

 

Did you write it or your friend using your suggestions.

 

PE are pretty crafty when motorists write in to challenge their PCNs.

They ask things like "are you challenging as the driver?" If your friend ticked  " yes ", then they identified as the driver. 

Could you please post up the exact wording and copy of the challenge made. 

 

If you are certain that the driver has not been id'd, you could send them an SAR and ask for the information and where the proof is where the id occurred.

If they lied I guess they may well cancel the ticket.

[dx100uk]

the op is not stupid enough to name the driver in the appeal they wrote for their friend to PE , look at their thread history.

PE are also not stupid enough to lie and say someone did.

 

something is not right here.

 

dx 

 

[dx100uk]

5 hours ago, newmoses said:

The driver totally ignored the windscreen pcn, and got a NTK some 23 days later

then that is also wrong as an ntk should not be issued for a windscreen ticket before day 29 of the windscreen pcn.

 

stuffed ignore them.

 

dx

[newmoses]

This is the letter I sent to P.E.on behalf of my friend, who is a work colleague.

 P.E.sent nothing that was requested, and instead sent a letter which is the one posted in this read.

 here is what I sent to P.E.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

                                 Before I am in a position to decide what to do with this pcn, please supply me with the following documentation, no later than 10 calendar days from the receipt of this letter.

 

1.Please supply a  full unredacted copy of your agreement with the land owner allowing you to enforce parking regulations. Unless of course, CEL are the legitimate landowners, in which case I require a copy of that proof as registered with the land registry. If however,CEL are not  the legal landowner of the said land, then you will have failed to constitute a contract with the land owner giving you the rights to enforce parking on the site. 

 

 When considering wether you are the legal land owner, and entitled to the stated fee, please bear this in mind:-

 2.If CEL are not the legal land owners, then your penalty charge would be deemed illegal under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999,if you are not the legal registered landowner. It is also an unfair term according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 regulation 62(4) October 1 2015.

 

3. I require you to provide me with a breakdown of how you reach the claimed figure. Please be aware of Judge McIlwaines comments in VCS v  Ibbotson Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain), where judge McIlwaine said  “Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place”.

 

Based upon that evidence, I suggest that the amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly parking. The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The charge is also, nearly double that of what a council parking charge would be.

 

I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives CEL the legal standing to levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor.

 

4. Supply  me with documentation showing how or where I formed a contract with CEL.I don’t recall entering into a contract wether fomally, verbally, by phone, text, email, or in person. Signs do not help CEL and drivers to form a contract.CEL, I believe, are only an agent who may or may not be the legal landowner as registered with the Land Registry.  Excel -v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

 

5. CEL have not said wether the pcn is for damages for trespass, or a contractual sum. Please specify which it is.

 

6. I do not believe that CEL have planning permission to erect signage (or the cameras) at this location),required under section 2a, town and country planning act,as defined in the Information Commissioners code of practice, book, updated October 2017.Here is the section you need:-

 

“Given the significant amounts of information that ANPR systems are able to collect, it is important that individuals are informed that their personal data is being processed. The best way to do this is through signage explaining that ANPR recording is taking place and, if possible to do so, the name of the data controller collecting the information.

 

While it is a challenge to inform motorists that they are being monitored, there are methods you can use, such as the Town and Country Planning Act (control of advertisements) Regulations 2007, to help provide this information (see section 9.1.2 for further detail)”. You will find this on page 34, section 5 of the said handbook. If  however, you do have planning permission from the local council to erect cctv/anpr cameras and signage,, then please forward me a copy of the planning permission granted. I also require a copy of the approved planning application, approved site plan and schedule of installation and maintenance of the signs, and cameras.

 

7. Do not try and frighten me into paying by quoting the Supreme  Court case of Parking Eye V Barry Beavis.

Here is some information before and since that case.:- Parking Eye actually pay a fee to the landowners of the car park in question in the SC case, which is why no other cases using this case have gone to county court.  Furthermore,Judge J J Maloney did say in his case that he is “ only a district Judge and each case would be different depending on its issues”.

Either provide me with all the documentation I have requested, in the time scale stated, or simply  cancel your actions.

                                                  Yours Sincerely

 

Obviously i changed the name from CEl to Parking Eye.

 

Attachment removed docx shows personal details please use pdf (BN)

 

 

[dx100uk]

You do realise all your pers details are shown in file info/properties?

 

It's why our upload guide states use pdf only 

 

Dx

[dx100uk]

there is alot of twaddle in that template appeal letter that originates in paragraphs of various letters found on many alternate websites heavily into common law,  FmOtL and sovereign state stuff. i suspect that, luckily, any successes to date came about because of the other correct arguements it has merged into it.

 

the classic signs of their incorrect arguments always revolve around:

 

intimating that speculative invoices are somehow a PENALTY Charge, thus anything the PPC does wrong will suddenly become a serious ILLEGAL Criminal matter in a magistrates court, a bigger stick to hit them with.

 

Sadly PPC's and any kind of compliance issues under UTCCR and CRA 2015 consumer codes are only unlawful, a Civil matter in the county court and the authorities that would be involved in such compliance issues, the FCA, the FOS and the ICO have never got involved in any private parking matters to date. There is also no evidence of any code non compliance ever being legally tested nor playing any part in any of the county court PPC success cases to date. their need for code compliance is a total red herring.

 

the other classic give away is the same spelling mistakes in all versions - like weather not whether.

 

can you post up the answers to our template questions as text here not a docx ...thankyou.

[newmoses]

Got my result yesterday for the parking sly windscreen pcn at asda,Long Eaton.Successful.The assessor was Alex James.

 

Operator Information and Evidence

Submitted 17/05/2022

Verification Code

6061302323

We have received your comments and we will begin your assessment in due course

Operator Name

Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

Operator Case Summary

OP Case Summary

POPLA assessment and decision

22/06/2022

Verification Code

6061302323

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Alex James

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to parent and child only.

 Parking sly could not supply any evidence that the driver did not have any children.

Alex did say that other points I challenged the pcn on were not taken into account as he came to his decision on this one point.

That makes it 87-0 to me since the mid 1990's.3 in a row with parking sly.

[lookinforinfo]

We may be talking about two different parking cases here.

On the PCN shown at post 3 it states  that it was sent on the 11th May-20 days after the Notice to Driver on the 11th April. To comply with POFA that PCN would not normally have been sent out until at least 28 days after the NTD. 

 

As the PCN makes clear, the reason they sent out the PCN early was because someone wrote in and from that appeal/letter they deduced that the author had outed who was driving.

 

Therefore PE sent out a PCN that was not a Notice to Keeper because there was no need because the driver had been revealed. Under PoFA when a driver has ben revealed PE cannot then send a Notice to Keeper since they already know who was driving.

 

Your letter does not appear to reveal who was driving and nor is it dated. But what seems certain is that a letter was received by PE prior to the 11th May that triggered their response.  Who was the PCN addressed to? Are you sure your colleague didn't write to PE before you, or are the PCNS mixed up?