Parking Eye- Appeal on hold
Discussion
johnfm said:
You use lawyers to draft a POPLA appeal?
Did my appeal myself using MSE.Not hard they lose appeals all the time it's a calculated risk as their paperwork is full of holes Parking eye take just hoping you will back down at some point. It's cost them a load of admin and £27 to appeal to popla our ticket and everyone did appeal their business model would fail and or they would start having to stop defrauding people and comply with BPA regs which they only join to get access to dvla data.
surveyor_101 said:
Did my appeal myself using MSE.
Not hard they lose appeals all the time it's a calculated risk as their paperwork is full of holes Parking eye take just hoping you will back down at some point. It's cost them a load of admin and £27 to appeal to popla our ticket and everyone did appeal their business model would fail and or they would start having to stop defrauding people and comply with BPA regs which they only join to get access to dvla data.
It is indeed a numbers game for the parking companies, especially as there is so much incorrect advice out there telling people to ignore the tickets as they are unenforceable.Not hard they lose appeals all the time it's a calculated risk as their paperwork is full of holes Parking eye take just hoping you will back down at some point. It's cost them a load of admin and £27 to appeal to popla our ticket and everyone did appeal their business model would fail and or they would start having to stop defrauding people and comply with BPA regs which they only join to get access to dvla data.
My own experience of Parking Eye and UKPC is that they give up quite easy if you challenge them with anything remotely legal based, rather than just mitigation. PE issue about 30,000 court claims per year, with allegedly fewer than 3000 being contested. The rest are "ignored" and a default judgement issued.
UKPC couldn't find their own arse with both hands, let alone their way to win a court claim, but they are persistent in correspondence, and then they pass it DRP/Zenith who are even more persistent.
The legislation that covers private parking is so flaky and full of holes. It is clear it was rushed through as an appeasement to the parking industry when clamping was outlawed, and not fully thought through
S11Steve said:
It is indeed a numbers game for the parking companies, especially as there is so much incorrect advice out there telling people to ignore the tickets as they are unenforceable.
My own experience of Parking Eye and UKPC is that they give up quite easy if you challenge them with anything remotely legal based, rather than just mitigation. PE issue about 30,000 court claims per year, with allegedly fewer than 3000 being contested. The rest are "ignored" and a default judgement issued.
UKPC couldn't find their own arse with both hands, let alone their way to win a court claim, but they are persistent in correspondence, and then they pass it DRP/Zenith who are even more persistent.
The legislation that covers private parking is so flaky and full of holes. It is clear it was rushed through as an appeasement to the parking industry when clamping was outlawed, and not fully thought through
After my company sec appealed and they said on hold till you give us driver details as he only pulled in for a moment, I sent them a legal letter and they just said appeal failed!My own experience of Parking Eye and UKPC is that they give up quite easy if you challenge them with anything remotely legal based, rather than just mitigation. PE issue about 30,000 court claims per year, with allegedly fewer than 3000 being contested. The rest are "ignored" and a default judgement issued.
UKPC couldn't find their own arse with both hands, let alone their way to win a court claim, but they are persistent in correspondence, and then they pass it DRP/Zenith who are even more persistent.
The legislation that covers private parking is so flaky and full of holes. It is clear it was rushed through as an appeasement to the parking industry when clamping was outlawed, and not fully thought through
surveyor_101 said:
After my company sec appealed and they said on hold till you give us driver details as he only pulled in for a moment, I sent them a legal letter and they just said appeal failed!
There's no obligation to name the driver stated in POFA 2012, so arguably a win there on that point! IPC try that quite often too, but again where they do it's a good sign that they wouldn't want it to be seen in a court claim.As most PPC enforcement is based on signage, there's very few that specify if parking and stopping are classed as the same thing. The few signs that I know of that do state "No stopping" are not on relevant land, i.e - Liverpool & Doncaster airports, so would ever get in front of a judge anyway.
S11Steve said:
There's no obligation to name the driver stated in POFA 2012, so arguably a win there on that point! IPC try that quite often too, but again where they do it's a good sign that they wouldn't want it to be seen in a court claim.
As most PPC enforcement is based on signage, there's very few that specify if parking and stopping are classed as the same thing. The few signs that I know of that do state "No stopping" are not on relevant land, i.e - Liverpool & Doncaster airports, so would ever get in front of a judge anyway.
As most PPC enforcement is based on signage, there's very few that specify if parking and stopping are classed as the same thing. The few signs that I know of that do state "No stopping" are not on relevant land, i.e - Liverpool & Doncaster airports, so would ever get in front of a judge anyway.
Bpa state a reasonable grace period must be allowed to read and decide if the driver wishes to accept the terms. PE stated they have a grace period in their submission but make no reference to it or its length.
The contract they provide as mostly unreadable and heavily redacted. The grace period information was covered and PE told a previous appeal their shiny new contract issued in April 2016 replaced this now terminated agreement. No one has commented on this fact from popla or PE but probably why I won as I questioned this.
Also they have lost planning permission for short term parking at the site and now only have 5 hour £25 minimum charge from the council, however PE care not and continue to operate outside of the planning permission.
I believe that Planning consent (or lack of) is coming a lot as another reason for cancellation, but I'm not privy to each of the sites the vehicles i manage are ticketed at, and don't relish researching each one!
The BPA Code of Practice is not worth the paper it is written on when it comes to appeals or even POPLA I've found. The standard response is that it is not legally binding however in order for the PPC to keep their KADOE contract with the DVLA, they have to be a member of an Approved Trade Association, and to do that, they need to abide by the code of practice...
I am finding a lot of the Notice to keepers are sent outside the 56 day time period set down in POFA though, and also many don't even mention POFA in the wording, so the keeper can not be held liable. As I'm pushing back on the various PPCs, I'm gradually getting fewer rejections and more of them are cancelling at first chance rather than waste £27 on a POPLA appeal.
It's a bit of a sport to me now!
The BPA Code of Practice is not worth the paper it is written on when it comes to appeals or even POPLA I've found. The standard response is that it is not legally binding however in order for the PPC to keep their KADOE contract with the DVLA, they have to be a member of an Approved Trade Association, and to do that, they need to abide by the code of practice...
I am finding a lot of the Notice to keepers are sent outside the 56 day time period set down in POFA though, and also many don't even mention POFA in the wording, so the keeper can not be held liable. As I'm pushing back on the various PPCs, I'm gradually getting fewer rejections and more of them are cancelling at first chance rather than waste £27 on a POPLA appeal.
It's a bit of a sport to me now!
king 
S11Steve said:
UKPC couldn't find their own arse with both hands, let alone their way to win a court claim, but they are persistent in correspondence, and then they pass it DRP/Zenith who are even more persistent.
Ah, the company which got caught with it pants down when an observant motorist proved that time stamps on photos had been falsified. That little stunt earned UKPC a 3 month suspension from access to the DVLA database last year. It appears that it is being investigated again - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35253759And more doctored photographs were discovered a couple of weeks ago in a UKPC evidence bundle for a case at Worcester County Court.
Hopefully Patrick Troy will be as good as his word and, as a minimum, suspend UKPC's membership of the BPA for a full year this time. The problem for him is that would merely encourage it to jump ship and try for IPC membership instead which will be even worse news for motorists if it succeeds (the IAS is a kangaroo court with a clear conflict of interest). It is high time the government stepped in and banned competing ATAs. There should be a statutory appeal framework based on the London Tribunals & TPT model.
I would also like to see PPCs which are shown to flagrantly abuse the judicial system be declared vexatious litigants, subject to severe financial penalties, and the directors banned. Also, landowners need to be compelled to take a much greater degree of responsibility for the conduct of those to whom they sub-contract parking management. Only then will we get a system which is fair to both sides and, more importantly, seen to be.
PurpleMoonlight said:
The car park operator is not at fault here, you driver was.
But do we know who the operator is or was?Was it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
S11Steve said:
But do we know who the operator is or was?
Was it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
I was not drivingWas it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
The landowner is a developer they contracted elite parking Ltd, then they contracted parking eye.
Its a gravel pit ear marked for development but elite keep applying for 3 year planning to run it as a car park, they lost the right to operate it as parking eye do currently as short term on the 31st Jan 16. Parking eye have ignored Leeds city council and carried on operating it as short term all day with over night parking, leads said minimum 5 hours £25 minimum charge 6.20am-8pm only, That was if they made improvements shown in the elite parking planning application. Have they done anything no!
Parking eye lost on lack of land owner authority so no!
No their signage and notice was not pofa complaint. They served it after the 14 days so did not achieve keepe liability.
No we claim it's not complaint and signage plan they submitted shows signs since removed and some not in the photos provided. One photo dated 31.01.15, says 'sign removed 02.09.15'! I drove a bus through there operator submission.
Contract and signage are unclear and unreadable and unlit. The chance you could read them without and walking parking first are slim.
Parking Eye lost loads of appeals using the heavily redacted blurly scanned a billions times contract dated dec 15. They in a march 12th appeal provided POPLA with a new one with new owner dated the 1st april 16 stating it superceeded all previous contracts on aire street leeds site. They lost the appeal as it was dated before the 12th march. I can only assume they thought they would try the old contract on our appeal (22nd march) as they new the april contract was no good. Fraud or just a massive clerical error, you decide!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 1st June 19:42
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 1st June 19:45
S11Steve said:
But do we know who the operator is or was?
Was it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
I was not drivingWas it the landowner?
Was it a retail park management company?
Was the parking company the operator?
Did the parking company even have a valid contract with the landowner to issue charges?
Was it even relevant land in the scheme of POFA?
Was the signage even compliant to form a contract?
Without knowing the answers to these, nobody can say if there even was a fault, let alone who it belonged to.
But let's send a £100 invoice and see if some shmuck pays up anyway?
The landowner is a developer they contacted elite parking Ltd, then they contracted parking eye.
Its a gravel pit ear marked for development but elite keep applying for 3 year planning to run it as a car park, they lost the right to operate it as parking eye do on the 31st Jan 16. Parking eye have ignored Leeds city council and carried on operating it as shot term all day over night parking spot, leads said strike hours £25 minimum charge for 5 hours if they made improvement in the elite parking planning app. Have they done anything no!
Parking eye lost on lack of land owner authority so no!
No their signage and notice was not pofa complaint. They served it after the 14 days so did not achieve keepe liability.
No we claim it's not complaint and signage plan they submitted shows signs since removed and not in the photos provided. One photo dated 31.01.15 sign removed 02.09.15! I drove a bus through there operator submission.
Contact and signage are unclear and unreadable and unlit. The chance you could read them with parking first are slim.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff