amane
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by amane
-
will do
-
yes thanks, do feel more confident. Also really appreciate your support @ericsbrother @lookingforinfo @honeybee @brassnecked @dx100uk your support has made me have a look at myself and will be more supportive of others myself in future too - Thanks once again
-
Thanks to all the team on this site - I successfully won my appeal , I received the message below from POPLA. Thankyou ALL "Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA. An Appeal has been opened with the reference xxxxxx Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge. Yours sincerely POPLA Team"
-
Thanks for the tip off. However I am still grateful for your support regardless of the appeal outcome I have made to POPLA - which was not straight forward as the online appeal form does appear to have been designed in a way to discourage people to make an appeal - so I do question POPLA's impartiality
-
@ ericsbrother I will take the above points on board and will include in my appeal along with the relevant signage photos with the claim - will keep you updated on the outcome. massive thanks to all the team for your help, wishing you and all your families the best - you have been great. Thanks
-
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?
-
@ 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
-
@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
-
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
-
@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?
-
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
-
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....."
-
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
-
@ 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
-
Thanks - I have cropped the relevant small print on the signage - see attached. Parking Eye signage - small print.pdf
-
OK, Thanks , will type up and send in my reply what it say. Thanks
-
@ dx100uk there are 2 additional images on page 2 of the document. You should able to zoom in . I tried to attach as JPG files, which is very clear when you zoom in , however I get an error message when I try to upload the JPG. Thanks
-
@ Ericsbrother , thanks for your latest post , will follow up with the DVLA. As discussed last week I have attached a copy of the signage/machine at the aire street car park. any advise on what I should include in my appeal to POPLA will be appreciated. Also BTW I got a reply from my MP's office, who said I should appeal to POPLA and they would be happy to also write me a supporting letter. aire sreet car park leeds - signage.pdf
-
@ brassnecked , I have been in touch with my MP and will consider BBC watchdog too @ ericsbrother DVLA did not provide any further information other than what I posted above - as per your advise will write BPA I had sent 2 separate emails to the DVLA - the response above is from my email to "subject access requests" and the one below is the response received from my email sent via their "complaints form" on their website - just looks like a standard response after comparing the two. "Thank you for your e-mail dated 17/09/17 about ParkingEye Ltd. Regulation 27 of Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 allows vehicle keeper details to be disclosed to third parties who can demonstrate that they have a reasonable cause to receive it. This Regulation provides a legal gateway to a secure electronic link. It should be noted that an electronic link is a means of requesting and receiving information; it is not direct access into DVLA’s vehicle register. The electronic service is a system to system service. (An interface between the service provider system and the DVLA system) The information is transferred back via a secure file transfer (SFTP) capability. The only information provided to DVLA is the vehicle registration number, the date of event and any relevant reference numbers. There is no requirement to submit any evidence with their enquiry however this must be made available upon DVLA audit request. The release of information to private car parking companies is considered to be a reasonable cause. Landowners would have great difficulty in enforcing their rights if motorists were able to park with impunity on private property. This does not infringe the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner (ICO) is aware that personal data held on the vehicle register can be used in this way. While seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent. There are robust safeguards in place to help ensure that motorists are treated fairly when any parking charge is pursued. Vehicle keeper information is disclosed only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA).. The company in question, ParkingEye Ltd, is a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) which is an Accredited Trade Association for the parking industry. If you feel that any of the practices used by the company do not comply with the BPA’s code of practice, you may wish to contact the BPA at Stuart House, 41- 43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH16 3BN. To coincide with the introduction of keeper liability the BPA has established an independent appeals service as mentioned in ParkingEye Ltd correspondence to you which was attached to your complaint. The appeals service is an independent body whose decisions are binding on the members of the BPA. The introduction of this service is expected to help drive up standards in the parking industry, so that it delivers parking arrangements that are fair and equitable to motorists and landowners alike. This service is known as Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). I have provided a link I trust I have explained matters but, if you remain unhappy with the service you have received, you can write to our Complaints Team and I have provided a link to our complaints procedure leaflet for your reference."
-
Please see response below I received from DVLA today , further to the email I sent to them (see my post above on 17th Sept @ 15.40) "Thank you for your letter regarding release of information from the vehicle records held at DVLA. As one of the deputy managers of Vehicle Record Enquiries section it has been passed to me for reply. First may I explain that DVLA takes very seriously its duty under the Data Protection Act to protect the privacy of the motorists whose details it holds for the purposes of registering and licensing vehicles, and to comply with the Act’s guiding principles. However, the Act exempts from its non-disclosure provisions the release of personal data where the law allows it and DVLA is not in a position to refuse those who have a legitimate right to receive information. Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 requires DVLA to release information from the vehicle register to the police, to local authorities for purposes associated with the investigation of an offence or decriminalised parking contravention, and to anyone who can demonstrate ‘reasonable cause’ to have it. ‘Reasonable cause’ is not defined in legislation and requests are considered on their merits. Requests from private car parking enforcement companies are considered to meet the ‘reasonable cause’ criteria. Unauthorised parking on private land is a problem many landowners experience and providing them with information is necessary to allow them to enforce their rights to their property Full details on the release of information, what constitutes ‘reasonable cause’, the complaints procedure and the new process for making enquiries are available at Enquiries made by electronic means have to be supported by other stringent requirements. Whilst seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases. Representations about the display of signs or other circumstances relating to an incident should be made directly to the company concerned which you have already done or to the British Parking Association (BPA). The British Parking Association is the appropriate ATA for the parking industry and it’s code of practice is published on the website at under the heading Approved Operator Scheme. If you feel that any of the practices employed by CPS Ltd do not comply with the BPA’s code then you may wish to refer your concerns to the BPA at Stuarts House, 41-43 Perrymount Road, Haywards Heath, RH163BN. Alternatively, if you feel that they acted inappropriately in breach of consumer protection legislation, your local Trading Standards office may be able to offer advice. I hope my explanation clarifies the position of the Agency on this matter". Do you think the 2 sentences highlighted in red above are a contradiction?
-
@ ericsbrother , Thanks for your advise Admittedly I was hasty in sending my appeal to Parking Eye, wish I had read your initial advice and posted my proposed response before submitting - lessons learnt. I will try and get pictures of the car park signage and ticket machine within the next couple of days. Thanks once again
-
@ lookingforinfo Thanks for your reply. Is the response below to the DVLA OK? I have 28 days to write/send the appeal to POPLA, ,so will appeal soon after I have received a response from the DVLA - all being well within 14 days. Dear Sir/Madam I recently parked my car at Aire Street Car Park in Leeds and received a charge of £60 for allegedly leaving the car park 52 seconds too late. I visited Leeds city centre on a Saturday with my family and paid £4.50 which covered us for parking till 6pm. According to Parking eye (car park management) we left the car park at 6pm and 52 seconds, according to my clock it was before 6pm that we left. I think this is very unreasonable even if someone has gone over by a minute, as I understand they should be allowing entrants/users of the car park a 10 minute grace period. I have included below an extract from the appeal letter I sent, which has been rejected – please see attached response I have received. “I am very surprised to have received a parking charge in the post on 8/9/17, letter dated 4/9/17. I wish to contest these charges for reasons detailed below. I visited Leeds city centre with my family – wife and 2 children, aged 12 and 2 years old on 26/8/17. We did park in the car park on Aire Street and paid for the time we parked on the day, which covered us till 6pm, my daughter who is 12 years old paid the money into the machine, Your cameras on site will able to verify making payment into the machine. According to your camera/clock I was on the give way, leaving the car park on to the main road at 6pm. (i.e. 6pm and 52 seconds). According to the time on my clock we returned to the car park before 6pm. We loaded the boot with our shopping bags and baby pushchair, then put our young 2 year old daughter into the car, we then vacated the parking spot before 6pm and in fact left the car park according to mine and my partner’s clock before 6pm. In any case I understand you should also allow a grace period/time to users of the car park. I am a law abiding citizen, receiving such an additional charge, when I have paid for the parking charges due on the day in question, is very upsetting for me and my family. I have seeked legal advice on this matter, please accept my appeal against the parking charge you have imposed”. I am really annoyed with Parking Eye and the DVLA. I cannot understand why the DVLA released my personal details in the first place without reasonable cause? Surely the DVLA should not have provided my details if they had known I had allegedly breached the time limit by only 52 seconds which is well within the 10 minute grace period. I understand Parking Eye are in breach of their BPA guidelines which they are supposed to abide by in order to receive information from DVLA-viz. “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” Can I please query why the DVLA did not ask the reason why Parking Eye wanted my personal details? I should not have to spend my time/money having to contest this parking charge unnecessarily, when I am not liable of any parking charges owed. If the DVLA had followed "robust" procedures when it comes to giving out keeper information and acted correctly this could have been avoided. I do expect a reply within 14 days as to why you have breached the Data Protection Act and if you don't, a complaint will be forwarded to the ICO. Parking Eye’s allegations of 52 seconds over time is nowhere near a "reasonable cause" to have my personal details sent to them.
-
@ lookinforinfo thanks for your post. - just to confirm are you suggesting I ignore the letter from parking eye and not appeal via POPLA but write to the DVLA?
-
For PNC's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] please answer the following questions. 1 Date of the infringement 26/8/17 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 4/9/17 3 Date received - 8/9/17 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? yes 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] Yes – see below I am very surprised to have received a parking charge in the post on 8/9/17, letter dated 4/9/17. I wish to contest these charges for reasons detailed below. I visited Leeds city centre with my family – wife and 2 children, aged 12 and 2 years old on 26/8/17. We did park in the car park on Aire Street and paid for the time we parked on the day, which covered us till 6pm, my daughter who is 12 years old paid the money into the machine, Your cameras on site will able to verify making payment into the machine. According to your camera/clock I was on the give way, leaving the car park on to the main road at 6pm. (i.e. 6pm and 52 seconds). According to the time on my clock we returned to the car park before 6pm. We loaded the boot with our shopping bags and baby pushchair, then put our young 2 year old daughter into the car, we then vacated the parking spot before 6pm and in fact left the car park according to mine and my partner’s clock before 6pm. In any case I understand you should also allow a grace period/time to users of the car park. I am a law abiding citizen, receiving such an additional charge, when I have paid for the parking charges due on the day in question, is very upsetting for me and my family. I have seeked legal advice on this matter, please accept my appeal against the parking charge you have imposed. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] Yes received email today, stating my appeal has been unsuccessful see attached document below 7 Who is the parking company? Parking Eye 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Aire Street, Leeds For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes - POPLA There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here On the day in question the parking charges are £4.50 (8am-6pm).when I log on their website it states I was parked for 5hrs (until 6pm & 52s), but paid for 4hrs and 40 mins Can someone please advise on my next steps, (see above post) PS. message to Ericsbrother , thanks for your response , sorry didn't see that before I sent my appeal attachment.pdf
-
Thanks - sorry yes, it does not say fine on the letter it says "charges"
