ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Europe Political & Social Issues

Appealing a Private Parking Company Ticket

Updated on November 24, 2017

Why bother to appeal?.

The short answer is 'Why not?'. After all if you do not appeal and simply pay-up, then you become yet another victim of these money-grabbing scammers.

Sure, it takes a little effort to lodge an appeal as you have to appeal to the PPC & ask them to provide you with the appropriate code for the Independent Appeals Service that their governing body dictates, but at the end of the day a price of a 1st Class Stamp is still less than the cost of simply paying the £70+ that these idiots think a parking space is worth.

It also creates work & expense for the PPC as both appeals services charge the PPC to lodge a defense against your appeal.

You also need to remember that a PPC will rely on making the whole process appear to be so difficult as to persuade the motorist that it is less hassle to simply pay the invoice (remember, it is not a 'fine'. Only Councils and the Police can issue these).

Communal parking - flats & houses.

A lot of ill-informed site Management Companies have been duped into employing PPCs to look after parking on private estates. If you live in a leasehold property on such an estate and your lease states that you have a space/s allocated to you, then your lease (or if you rent, your landlord's lease) trumps any rights of the PPC.

If you live in a freehold property and the deeds allow for parking anywhere on site, then, just like the above, your deeds will trump the PPCs rights.

What this means in practice is that the ball is firmly in your court.

If you have to display a costly permit then you can write to the PPC and inform them that as you have the right to park in the allocated space (or, if the lease/deeds state 'anywhere within the boundary of the site', anywhere), you are exercising your right to opt out of the parking scheme as you, as the landowner, have no wish to participate in the scheme and should you receive any parking charges as a result of opting-out, reserve the right to sue the PPC & the appointing Agent/s (the Management Company & the elected site directors (if any)) for harassment.

The same goes if you receive a PCN. Let them know in no uncertain terms that you will not be allowing them to step into your 'space'. In both instances, send a copy to the Management Company for their records.

Should I tell the other residents what I have done. Absolutely. The more residents who 'reject' the PPC in such a manner, the harder it will be for the Management Company to justify employing the PPC.

First contact.

If you are unlucky-enough to receive a PCN from a PPC, then your first port of call should be a stinking letter of complaint to the manager of the shop/cinema that you were visiting at the time you received the PCN. This may well bring about a quick cancellation of the offending ticket.

Governing bodies.

Private Parking Companies have, by their very nature, to be a member of 1 of 2 governing bodies. These bodies run 'Approved Operator Schemes' (AOS) which the PPC needs to be part of before they can access your vehicle's ownership details from DVLA. The Governing Bodies also have 'Codes of Practice' (CoP) that their member PPCs have to adhere to in the day to day running of their operations.

The CoP will lay out such things as wording on signage (including font sizes and spacing).

The 2 Governing Bodies are -

The British Parking Association (BPA)

The Independent Parking Committee (IPC)

The process begins.

Regardless of the Governing Body, the process of appealing should only begin once you have received postal notification of the ticket and NOT when you come back and discover the PCN on your windscreen.

The PPC has to abide by strict time limits in order to comply with the AOS in place. This can be used to buy you time if you use it wisely.

Windscreen ticket - The PPC MUST NOT send a Postal 'Notice To Keeper' (PNtK) BEFORE day 29 or AFTER day 56 from the date of issue. This is to allow for the 28 day period for payment as indicated on the PCN.

Non-windscreen ticket - These are usually generated as a result of 'ANPR' cameras. PNtK MUST be received BEFORE day 15.

All PPCs tend to refer to S.4 of the POFA 2012. This is basically the section of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 that allows them to approach DVLA for your details. If you wish to check-out this particular section, then it has been redacted from the full POFA and posted HERE.

It is worthwhile reading this Legislation as it may assist you in your appeal.

Appealing a BPA member PCN.

If the PPC that has ticket you is a member of the BPA, then the appeals process is very well known and very achievable. This is due to the length of time that the BPA has been in existence.

All BPA AOS members must comply with BPA's CoP as this sets-out the procedures for dealing with a non-paying parker. If you have received a windscreen ticket, then you have 28 days to examine it and to familiarize yourself with this as it can be used to pull to pieces any evidence provided by the PPC.

For instance, do the signs used by the PPC comply with the CoP?. If they contain the use of the word 'Fine' in respect of the PCN, then no, they do not comply as the CoP states that a PCN cannot be referred to as a fine.

When you are happy that you have enough information to hand to begin your appeal, then you need to start the ball rolling with a letter of appeal.

IMPORTANT

When drafting your letter, make sure that you never refer to yourself as the driver. Only ever refer to yourself as the 'Registered Keeper' (RK). Your appeal needs to be short and have the absolute minimum of information in it (what is known as a 'soft appeal'). For instance if you had over-stayed in a supermarket carpark because you decided to visit the in-store cafe for a bite to eat, this should be kept out of your appeal as it is totally irrelevant.

The PPC aren't interested in how long you spent in the shop, just that you stayed there too long. Their sole job is to extract money from you (and pay the landowner their 'cut').

Appeals should be based on one fact even if there are more listed on the ticket. Whilst visiting a store, you may have a) Parked in a disabled bay (these have no legal existence in private carparks anyway) and b) Stayed beyond the permitted time.

So a good appeal would be -

"I wish to appeal PCN #xxxxxxxx under the grounds that as the carpark is free and there is no means to pay for additional parking time, I believe that no actual loss has occurred and there dispute the charge of £75 as stated on the PCN. If you reject my appeal, please send me a POPLA code so that I may use the independent appeals service."

According to the MSE motoring forum (Parking ticket sub-forum), adding the following to the end of any initial appeal is beneficial to your case.

'' My challenge is based on the assertion that your parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss to yourself or the landowner. In every case where a motorist has raised this issue, POPLA have accepted the appeal. You are therefore fully aware that there is no prospect of your charge being upheld. If you do reject the challenge and insist upon taking the matter further I must inform you that I may claim my expenses from you and my time at the court rate of £18 per hour. The expenses I may claim are not exhaustive but may include the cost of stamps, envelopes, travel expenses, legal fees, etc. By continuing to pursue me you agree to pay these costs when I prevail. ''

If you are lucky, the PPC will accept your appeal and that will be that. However, if they reject your appeal, then it's off to POPLA.

The POPLA appeal.

POPLA are the so-called independent appeals service for parking on private land (so-called because their website is owned by the BPA). They are the people who will hear your appeal at no cost to yourself. They will however charge the PPC £27 + VAT & the BPA £100. POPLA's decision is legally binding on the PPC only. It is not legally binding on the appellant.

Appeals to POPLA need to be carefully worded in order to win. As each person's appeal will be slightly different, I will not take up to much space going through every variant as this will be more of a book than a Hub. At the moment, one group of people are having a roaring success rate at providing winning appeals packs. This group are a bunch of forumites from MoneySavingExpert & if you need their help, you can click HERE and read the 'stickies' before either posting a new thread or PMing one of the forumites mentioned in the stickies.

Appealing an IPC member PCN

The initial appeals process is the same as that for the BPA, except that you need to ask for an IPC appeals code.

It is here where the process differs completely to that of POPLA. The IPC claim to have an independent appeals service, but the address is actually an adjoining office to that of Gladstones Solicitors (whose registered owners are the same as the IPC). They allow appeals to be lodged via their online service. Do not use this as it involves ticking a box that states that you are the driver (remember what I said earlier about only responding as the 'keeper' and not as the driver?. Well, the only way to do this when using the IPC's 'independent' appeals service is to write you letter of appeal.

Evidence so far, indicates that the 'Idependent Appeals Saervice' works in quite a mysterious and rather under-hand way,

When they receibe your appeal against the PPC's rejection of your direct appeal to then, The IPA send-off a copy of your evidence and appeal to the PPC concerned, who can then seek the advice of Gladstones Solicitors before submitting their evidence to support their case.


There have been a few wins on appeal to the IPA, but these are very few and far between.


Even if you lose at this appeal stage, you must still refuse to pay-up and wait for the PPC to begin Court action.

If it goes to Court.

If you find yourself being taken to Court by a PPC, then you really cannot chance your luck with a dodgy home-spun defense. The MSE forumites along with those on Pepipoo & 'The Parking Prankster' have a great deal of experience in creating Court defence packs for free (although if You want to send them a 'thank you', I'm sure they would appreciate it).

If you do end-up in Court, the main point to remember is that a 3rd-party (in this case, the PPC) has no legal authority to make a contract between the landowner and the land user (you). The whole case is actually one of tresspass and only the landowner can bring it.

A PPC won't want you to know this.

There are exceptions where the PPC actually rents the carpark from the landowner and in such (rare) cases, the PPC DOES have landowner rights to enter into a contract with you for parking.

Another very good point (and one that needs to be included in any defence pack) is that if the signage can be seen from the public highway, then planning permission is required under the 'Town & Country Planning Act 2000'. As this is a criminal offence, any PPC with any intelligence will soon withdraw their claim as they have no wish to be caught in a catch 22 situation.

By that, I mean that if they admit to not having planning permission, they are admitting to having committed a criminal act, and by stating they have obtained PP (this can be checked-out by viewing your local Council's online planning portal), and it is found they have not, then they may find themselves in trouble anyway.

Underhand tactics.

Some PPCs are using some really under-hand tactics to fool the Courts into giving them a default judgement.

One of the worst is CEL (Civil Enforcement Limited). Their tactic is to send out a County Court Claim stating "Particulars of Claim to follow". This PoC should arrive within 14 days of the original CCL. However, CEL are sending the PoC out after the 14 day limit, but are pre-dating the PoC by 16 days, so it looks like they sent it within the 14 day time limit.

This is important as when a claimant includes a statement that a PoC is following on, your 14 days to submit your acceptance of service on the MCOL website starts 1 day after the post date on the envelope and NOT 14 days from the delivery of the CCL.

Should you recieve a CCL from CEL that states 'Particulars of Claim to follow', it is very important to keep the envelope the PoC arrives in as this will provide evidence to the Court of the date that the PoC was actually posted.

If this happens, there is a template letter you can use to alert the Court and to complain to CEL about the fact you have noticed the backdating of the PoC.

The letter is below -


31st October 2017

Dear XXXXX

Claim number [xxxxxxx]

Regarding Claim Form XXXX I am writing to draw to your attention that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the Claim Form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4(1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 10th October, stating that the Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form

The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were sent under cover of 27th October. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on 30th October (as 28/29 October were Saturday/Sunday). However, they were dated the 11th October. , but not actually posted until the 27th October and received on the 28th October, a Saturday, meaning service was on the 30th October and
Service on 30 October means that my defense is therefore not due until the 13th November (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by 16 days, together with the covering letter. breach by the Particulars of Claim and the covering letter being backdated 11 October, whereas they were only posted on the 27th October and received on 28th October. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 27th October, a copy of which I have provided as evidence
The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear - under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9. OP I don't think your PoC were actually out of time so don't bother with this. The intention of this letter is to make sure the court doesn't think the PoC were served on 11 October, but much later, so that you don't get accused of late filing of your defence.

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.

Yours Faithfully


Please amend the dates underlined in bold to those relating to your particular claim.

If you have already visited MCOL and submitted your Acceptance of Service, then the following letter is the one to use -


Dear Sirs

Regarding Claim Form XXXXXXXX, I am writing to complain that the Claimant has deliberately backdated the Particulars Of Claim which were served separate to the claim form pursuant to CPR Rule 7.4 (1)(b).

The Claim form was issued on 11th October, stating that the detailed Particulars of Claim would be provided to me within 14 days after service of the claim form.

The further Particulars of Claim and covering letter were sent on 1st November 2017. As such, according to Rule 6.3(b) they were served on the 2nd November 2017. However they were dated the 11th October 2017. These dates mean that my defence is therefore not due ue until 16th November 2017 (Rule 15.4(1)(a)).

The Claimant has made a poor attempt to conceal the actual date on which it served the further Particulars by backdating them by 21 days, together with the covering letter. This is clearly demonstrated by the post mark on the envelope they arrived in, which shows the date of posting as 1st Nov, a copy of which I have provided as evidence.

The Civil Procedure Rules are quite clear – under Rule 3.8 the court should apply the sanctions unless the Claimant has applied for relief under 3.9.

I cannot fathom any reason for the Claimant having backdated its further Particulars of Claim, other than to try to gain an advantage by making it appear that I have filed my defence late, or by confusing me into having to rush to file my defence prematurely. This is a serious matter and I ask that this is formally noted on the court file.

I believe that the court should either disallow the further Particulars of Claim as no R3.9 application has been made by Civil Enforcement Limited or I should be given the opportunity to amend my defence as they were late serving the Particulars of Claim and I mistakenly thought I was running out of time to file it. The court is asked to consider these matters under its inherent Rule 3 case management powers and to give directions.

This is a commercial Claimant pursuing many other claims of this nature. It must therefore have knowledge of, and understand, the Civil Procedure Rules and these sorts of blatant breaches should not be allowed because they prejudice Litigants in Person who are not versed in court procedures and the court rules. It is with some difficulty that I have understood the various obligations and time limits set out in the Civil Procedure Rules, as a Litigant in Person, whereas the commercial Claimant has no such excuse.

I confirm that I have sent a copy of the letter to the Claimant.

Yours faithfully


Either letter can be emailed to the County Court Northanpton Business centre at

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Just to prove it works.

Just to prove that you CAN beat these scum in Court, here are a list of the cases lost by some of the big names (courtesy of the 'Parking Prankster').


ParkingEye losses
2014 -

3JD13428 ParkingEye v Williams (Derby, 28/03/2014). Rheidol Retail Park. ParkingEye did not produce a contract. ParkingEye's lawyer asked for the case to be adjourned so a contract could be produced. The defendant argued that they wanted the case over with. DDJ Potts ruled that because of the small sums involved he would rule on the evidence available on the day.


3JD09341 ParkingEye v Jones (Bristol, 28/03/2014). Bristol Retail Park. DDJ Batstone agreed with the findings of DDJ Melville-Shreeve (ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel) that the signage in the car park was 'wholly deficient'. The judge referred to ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel case several times.


3JD05448 ParkingEye v Gilmartin. ParkingEye obtained a default judgement which was later contested. At the hearing ParkingEye did not attend and the judge agreed to refer the case to POPLA. POPLA ruled that as this was a free car park ParkingEye had to show there was an initial loss to the landowner. As they did not, all sums spent on recovering a non-existing loss could not count as part of a genuine pre-estimate of loss calculation. POPLA returned their verdict on 28/03/2014.


3JD00719 ParkingEye v Mr O. The driver overstayed at a retail park because they had to unexpectedly breastfeed their child. DJ Major at Croydon County Court referred the case to POPLA on 13/09/2013. ParkingEye did not submit any evidence to POPLA who had no alternative but to uphold the appeal.


3JD01136 ParkingEye v Gallen. ParkingEye dropped this case without explanation shortly before the hearing. It is not known if this was because they found out 'Bargepole' would be lay representative, or if it it was due to the high quality of Mr Gallen's defence. A large number of letters ParkingEye alleged were sent never arrived at Mr Gallen's house. The evidence ParkingEye submitted to prove the letters were delivered in fact proved the letters were not delivered.


3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach. The defendant spent 31 minutes waiting for a car park space during the crowded holiday season. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked. The judge ruled this was not against the terms and conditions of the signage. The judge also stated that in any case £100 was not likely to be a true pre-estimate of loss.


3JD10678 ParkingEye v Rickard (Aylesbury 13/03/2014). The contract was only produced on the day, was heavily redacted and too small to read. The judge dismissed the claim because ParkingEye had no standing to bring the case.


3JD06363 ParkingEye v Tubey (Derby 10/03/2014). DJ Stark. Claim stuck out (no further information)


3JD04274 ParkingEye v Slijvic (Warrington 10/03/2014) Holiday Inn, Sheffield. DDJ Glassbrook. ParkingEye argued they were the principal, which contradicted the Jonathan Langham witness statement and the Jonathan Kirk QC document on agency. The judge was not impressed. The signage information provided conflicted with itself. Making an honest mistake of the car park to use was an allowable defence.


3JD08925 ParkingEye v Watson (Stoke 24/02/2014). Duke of Gloucester pub, Crewe. ParkingEye redacted the charge and grace time on the contract shown to the judge and so the judge could not confirm the charges were agreed by the landowner. The landowner has since cancelled the contract with ParkingEye.


3JD08473 ParkingEye v Mason (Sheffield 12/02/2014). District Judge Birkby. The judge was furious that no contract had been provided before the hearing, and that the contract produced on the day was redacted and a variation rather than the actual contract. The case was dismissed in 5 minutes as ParkingEye had no standing to bring the case. The defendant did not need to speak. The defendant was therefore unable to point out that the company stated in the witness statement as landowner did not exist as it was dissolved in 2009, three years before the contract which was dated 2012.


3JD03769 ParkingEye v Baddeley (Birmingham 11/02/2014) District Judge Bull. Newton Shopping Centre. The judge was not impressed with the size and lack of organisation of ParkingEye's bundle given the size of the claim and the fact ParkingEye had only booked one hour. The judge found that the defendant's calculation of pre-estimate of loss of around £5 was persuasive, and as ParkingEye could not explain how their calculation of £53 was arrived at, accepted the defendant's calculations. The claim was therefore dismissed.


3JD02430 ParkingEye v Howe. (Rhyll 30/01/2014) District Judge Thomas. Crewe Arms Hotel car park. The judge ruled the signage was not adequate and the defendant had done all she could be expected to do to ensure she had complied. The landowner witness statement had a company which did not exist at Company's House.


3JD02462 ParkingEye v Thomas. (Preston 29/01/2014). Churchill Way car park, Leyland, Lancs. District Judge Buckley dismissed the case because the signage was not adequate to create a contract between motorist and ParkingEye.


3JD06925 ParkingEye v Hopewell. (Halifax 29/01/2014) Deputy District Judge Gardner. The case was adjourned to await the results of the HHJ Moloney case.


3JD06533 ParkingEye v Collins-Daniel. (Bristol 24/01/2014). Eastgate Retail Park, Bristol. Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve felt the signage was inadequate. ParkingEye did not provide a landowner contract because there was a vendetta against them by unspecified online forums and providing a contract broke confidentiality laws. The Judge said this was rubbish.

3JD05814 ParkingEye v Taylor. (Morpeth and Berwick 24/01/2014) District Judge Howard. Belvedere car park, Newcastle upon Tyne. ParkingEye did not produce a contract. The judge ruled that without a relevant contract they could not issue parking charges as they were not the landowner and they could not therefore bring the claim in their own name.


3JD02357 ParkingEye v Gosnold. (High Wycombe 23/01/2014). District Judge Devlin. Wembley Retail Park. The judge agreed the landowner witness statement from Workman LLP was worthless. The LPC Law representative produced a heavily redacted version of the contract which the judge decided did not satisfy the 'relevant contract' provision of PoFa 2012 sch 4. The judge decided he did not need to rule whether Jonathan Langham's statement that ParkingEye's costs were £53 per ticket, when their accounts and DVLA figures showed the true figure was nearer £15, was perjury. As there was no standing for ParkingEye to bring the case, it was dismissed. £90 costs were awarded to the defendant.


3JD05152 ParkingEye v Beavis (Jan 2014). ParkingEye won this case, BUT the ruling ONLY APPLIES to the Riverside carpark in Chelmsford. This is because PE actually rent the carpark and thus have landowner rights.


3JD02719 ParkingEye v Davison (Peterborough 17/01/2014). ParkingEye filed conflicting signage information and failed to inform the defendant which signage was correct. The judge felt a parking charge of £5 would be appropriate.

The Parking Prankster Guide to Defending a ParkingEye Court Case
The Parking Prankster Guide to Defending a ParkingEye Court Case

Parking Prankster's guide to fighting Parking Eye (can be applied to other PPCs)

 

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Lozzama 3 years ago

      Can you provide a reference for your assertion that a company cannot be represented at a small claims court? I recently defended against Parking Eye who were not present. When I questioned this the judge explained as a qualified solicitor the opposition had right of audience and could represent the case in the claimants stead.

    • profile image
      Author

      Jamesm1968 4 years ago from UK

      I will assume that you have had the Notice to Keeper through the post prior to appealing. If not, wait for this, then appeal again as the registered keeper (but remember to not admit to being the driver though).

      They should send you a POPLA appeal code which you will need in order to escalate your appeal.

      You will find a good (and successful) template letter to use for your POPLA initial appeal at http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.p...

      Visit the 'stickies' and you will find that they have all the letters you need.

      As the forum is kept updated by 5 or 6 dedicated users, I won't duplicate their work, but will link to it.

    • profile image

      Karim CEO 4 years ago

      Hi there,

      I received a parking ticket of £50 in Hammersmith hospital from a PPC called "car parking partnership" for parking mistakingly with a pay and display ticket in a permit holders only area. I sent an appeal to the parking company which they've rejected and I need some kind of advice on what to do next please. Thank you.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: "https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr"

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)