Parking eye behind Dunelm mills in Hillsborough GONE?? WHY??

[kirkbylad 10]

Parking eye have left. the signs are not there any more and would i be right in saying that they cannot enforce the charge as they no longer have an agreement with the land owner. The Land owner would have to pursue this but he has not done it in the time stated by the bpa cop? bearing in mind he cant be a member of the bpa so cannot levy a charge anyway????

 

No thats wrong

 

You are thinking about this the wrong way.

As i said follow my advice otherwise you will FAIL

[NightFlight 10]

They can still pursue because "at the time" they could.

Just go to pepipoo and follow the advice. honestly, much better to do it properly and not need it than to go it alone and get it wrong.

[ducatiboy 10]

No thats wrong

 

You are thinking about this the wrong way.

As i said follow my advice otherwise you will FAIL

 

I am going to do the appeal how you have suggested I am just discussing whether there are any other points I can also put in my appeal as a lot of info says to put as much evidence in your appeal as possible. Not to rely on just one or 2 things. I have taken into account what you have said and I will use it. Thanks for your advice!

 

---------- Post added 31-01-2014 at 15:37 ----------

 

When you get the outcome nightflight could you let me know how it went please?

[kirkbylad 10]

But The fact that PE is no longer involved is not evidence of anything. It just means that a certain date the contract was terminated for what ever reason.

 

AS GPEOL and no contract are the winning things then this is all that matters. Of course you can put other stuff in but dont muddy the waters by putting in stuff that isnt relevent

[ducatiboy 10]

kirkbylad. I am unclear of the No contract part. sorry for being a bit dumb. Could you explain please?

[kirkbylad 10]

Just send this, nothing else is needed:

 

I wish to appeal against this parking eye charge on two issues:

 

GPEOL

No Contract

 

 

The amount demanded is not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss

The wording on the signs appears to indicate that the parking charge represents damages for a breach of the parking contract - liquidated damages, in other words compensation agreed in advance. Accordingly, the charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The estimate must be based upon loss flowiing from a breach of the parking terms. This might be, for example, loss of parking revenue or even loss of retail revenue at a shopping centre.

 

The parking company submitted that the charge is a genuine pre-estimate of the losses incurred in managing the parking location.

The entirety of the parking charge must be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable. I require the parking company to submit a breakdown of how these costs are calculated. All of these costs must represent a loss resulting from the alleged breach at the time. Note:- the charges demanded by the operator as "genuine loss" are those allegedly incurred at the point of issuing the charge, and can not include speculative future costs relating to internal appeal procedures or mounting a POPLA defence.

 

For example, were no breach to have occurred then the cost of parking enforcement (for example, erecting signage, wages, uniforms, office costs) would still have been the same and, therefore, may not be included.

 

Equally, as the claim is being made for estimated losses at the time of the alleged contravention, then any costs included by the Operator that relate to accumulated amounts post that date are obviously invalid. Should such cost heads be included in the claim, as well as any profit element, then POPLA must reject the charge.

It would, therefore, follow that these charges were punitive, have an element of profit included and are not allowed to be imposed by parking companies

 

 

No Contract:

 

 

It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.

In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority, I require the parking company to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they do, indeed have such authority.

 

It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I require, if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory

is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner ,has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company

[ducatiboy 10]

Right. thats that then! I will use that. Thanks very much Kirkbylad your a diamond!!

[kirkbylad 10]

Not a problem, let us know how you get on

[Walkley Dave 10]

Parking Eye have been taking over by C®apita. They paid £57.5 million.

 

Shortly afterwards they won the "Congestion Charge" contract for London.