Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 13th Sep 16, 7:56 PM
    • 25Posts
    • 23Thanks
    AJRawlins
    Should I pay PCN
    • #1
    • 13th Sep 16, 7:56 PM
    Should I pay PCN 13th Sep 16 at 7:56 PM
    I have just received a PCN from parking eye and would appreciate any advice on this. I have read the newbie thread how to dispute and appeal and am considering going to the manager of business the driver was parked outside and complaining to them and also going online to parking eye and disputing the charge. The business in question is DW Sports and why I am asking advice is because my son went inside to cancel a membership, not being a driver he knew nothing off the fact that you have to supply your car details when entering the gym.
    I did not notice the signs on the day but have been back to the site and it does state the car park is for patrons only so I was there with a patron could I use this in my defence.
    Last edited by AJRawlins; 16-09-2016 at 1:04 PM.
Page 2
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 16th Sep 16, 12:32 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    Sorry now I am confused again, so do I go with the advice above or the appeal i had already written out about grace period.
    Also after reading yet more threads on here I come across one mentioning date served. The event took place on 01/09 and date of issue on NTK is 08/09 and I recived the NTK on 13/09
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 16th Sep 16, 12:38 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    I have also today received another e-mail from DW customer service stating they have forwarded it to their GM and if he is able to provide evidence that I was at the club on the date of the ticket then he will contact me to discuss, so will not hold my breath.
    • Northlakes
    • By Northlakes 16th Sep 16, 12:50 PM
    • 768 Posts
    • 1,052 Thanks
    Northlakes
    Sorry now I am confused again, so do I go with the advice above or the appeal i had already written out about grace period.
    Also after reading yet more threads on here I come across one mentioning date served. The event took place on 01/09 and date of issue on NTK is 08/09 and I recived the NTK on 13/09
    Originally posted by AJRawlins
    The NTK was served in time and PFA 2012 was used so we forget these points now. PE are claiming keeper liability using POFA.

    You're in danger of 'putting the cart before the horse' and over worrying about the initial appeal. It will be turned down PE without question as all they care about is one thing, getting the money with minimum costs to themselves.
    Don't ever think that PE give up, it's very rare unless their landowners overrule them.

    CM's argument is sound over the forbidding signage and this will be used in your later POPLA appeal, along with grace periods and any other valid appeal point. Have you found the landowner? Advertising consent? Get these done before worrying over later issues. One step at a time.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 16, 12:51 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Sorry now I am confused again, so do I go with the advice above or the appeal i had already written out about grace period.
    Also after reading yet more threads on here I come across one mentioning date served. The event took place on 01/09 and date of issue on NTK is 08/09 and I recived the NTK on 13/09
    Originally posted by AJRawlins
    That's in time, as Northlakes posted and beat me to it!

    I agree with Northlakes, complain to the landowner URGENTLY as loads of PE PCNs get cancelled that way. And just send the appeal to PE (online, as 'registered keeper') that you planned to send and do not cross bridges you are not at yet.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Northlakes
    • By Northlakes 16th Sep 16, 12:53 PM
    • 768 Posts
    • 1,052 Thanks
    Northlakes
    I have also today received another e-mail from DW customer service stating they have forwarded it to their GM and if he is able to provide evidence that I was at the club on the date of the ticket then he will contact me to discuss, so will not hold my breath.
    Originally posted by AJRawlins
    Great, hope this comes about.
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 16th Sep 16, 1:02 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    No landowner found yet as DW have stated they don't have that information. I will go ahead and appeal online and wait for the POPLA code, many thanks for all the help.
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 19th Sep 16, 3:45 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    Here is an update on the current situation.
    Have received an e-mail from the store manager confirming my son is a member and was in the club on the day of PCN,and also that he was not informed off the new system so could not have entered registration of vehicle.

    So now the question is I am still waiting to here back from PE about my appeal, do I contact them again and forward this e-mail to them as evidence or wait and supply this in the POPLA if appeal rejected.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Sep 16, 3:52 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would email them to add it to the appeal and say you await confirmation of cancellation:

    info@parkingeye.co.uk



    HTH
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 19th Sep 16, 4:02 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    Thanks I will do as soon as possible
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 19th Sep 16, 4:37 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    After doing this I have got an automated response back stating that that e-mail is for general enquiries only so will I have to write to them as well. This is what it says to do in the auto response.
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 10th Oct 16, 3:34 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    So finally I have received my notice of appeal rejected and been issued with a POPLA code, so below is my initial POPLA draft with omissions for obvious reasons. Please advise on the structure, thanks.

    POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxxx
    I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified and vehicle legally on land.
    1. The vehicle was indeed on the land legally as is backed up by the word document included, which is an e-mail from the General Manager of xxxxxxxx , of whose members the car park is for the use of. Parking Eye Ltd. Were sent a copy of this e-mail but have obviously ignored it.
    2. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator:.
    Vehicle entered car park at xxxx and left at xxxx,
    British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:
    13 Grace periods
    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
    having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    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.
    3. Insufficient signage.
    Parking Eye Ltd. state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visable in said images. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visable to the driver if they happened to be driving a convertible with the roof down and quite clearly this is not the case in the images. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.
    4. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers.
    Parking Eye Ltd. are required to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. Any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with any landholder). In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner otherwise there is no authority.

    As Parking Eye Ltd. do not have proprietary interest in the land, I demand that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner that authorises them to offer contracts for parking in their name, issue Parking Charge Notices and take legal action in their name for breach of contract. I do not believe they have such authority.

    Parking Eye Ltd. has no title in this land and no BPA compliant landowner contract assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.




    I take it they will have the PCN details from PE or do I need to include the photos on the PCN
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 3:45 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    First question, does the PCN have the paragraph about 'POFA 2012 and keeper liability after 29 days'? OR is it a version that was sent after 14 days and has a blank space (missing paragraph) near the bottom of the front page?

    Secondly, stronger template appeal points are in the penultimate page of POPLA Decisions, whcih will at least beef up your points and make it much longer (which PE do not like bothering with!).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 10th Oct 16, 5:04 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    It has the POFA 2012 and keeper liability I will take a look at the template now.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Oct 16, 5:41 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I like this bit but I do like the 'throw the kitchen sink at it' approach to POPLA appeals, which does work much of the time:

    They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visable to the driver if they happened to be driving a convertible with the roof down and quite clearly this is not the case in the images.
    Sounds like signage and the Grace Period (if only there minutes) are your strong points here. You could also add a point that there can be no legitimate interest, à la 'Parking Eye v Beavis case', where the landowner has confirmed that the driver was using the car park with full authorisation*.

    Have a look at the template appeal point posts in 'POPLA Decisions' including:

    2341
    2342
    2343
    2345 (but POPLA tend to think the ParkingEye 'POFA 2012' version is OK)

    and for the 'differs from Beavis, no legitimate interest in charging when authorised by the landowner' argument:

    *2361 (hat tip to IanMSpencer for the way that one is worded). Would need adapting but makes sense to have something along those lines.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 11th Oct 16, 1:25 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    Ok thank you coupon-mad for all the help, this is now what I have to go with don't think I can add anything else.

    POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxxx
    I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd,. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.
    1. The vehicle was indeed authorised to be on the land legally as is backed up by the word document included, which is an e-mail from the General Manager of xxxxx, of whose members the car park is for the use of. Parking Eye Ltd. Were sent a copy of this e-mail but have obviously ignored it.. Indeed, the driver has informed me that they had to park just to be able to find a sign to read and by the time that the ridiculously small print had been read the member had concluded their short business and left, the member had not been informed by staff of the new parking system. In fact there is not even a facility to enter a vehicle registration inside the reception area as you have to actually enter the gym through a card activated turnstile.
    2. The operator makes much of Beavis case. They are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different, essentially that case was the abuse of a free time limited public car park where signage could be used to create a contract.

    In this case, we have an authorised user using the car park appropriately, there has been no loss to the owner. While the courts might hold that a large charge might be appropriate in the case of a public car park, essentially as a deterrent, there is nothing in the case to suggest that a reasonable person would accept that a £100 (or £60 if paid promptly) fine is a conscionable amount to be charged whilst an authorised member visits the business to speak to a manager for 10 minutes.
    Therefore, in this case GPEOL should still apply and any putative contract needs to be assessed on its own merits. Consumer law always applies and no contract “falls outside” The Consumer Rights Act 2015; the fundamental question is always whether the terms are fair.
    3. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the operator:
    The vehicle entered the car park at 09:17 and left at 09:29
    British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:
    13 Grace periods
    13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without
    having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
    13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still
    allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
    13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
    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.
    4. Insufficient signage.
    Parking Eye Ltd. state that the terms and conditions of parking are displayed at the entrance to the car park but their own images of the vehicle included on the PCN disprove this because no signage is visable in said images. The keeper made a special visit to the car park to ascertain the positioning and quality of the sign. They are positioned further inside the entrance and would only be visable to the driver if they happened to be driving a convertible with the roof down and quite clearly this is not the case in the images. Unreadable signage breaches Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice which states that terms on entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead. A Notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms beforehand. Also because of this visit it is noted that the sign is a forbidding one, so no contract can be made with the driver.
    5. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    Also Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
    Parking Eye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.
    Failure of Parking Eye to follow the BPA code of practice, particularly in contravention of clause 22.8 of the British Parking Associations code of practice too which Parking Eye must abide states that members of the BPA must “acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. The initial appeal was lodged online on Parking Eye’s site on the 16/09/2016, yet Parking Eye did not respond until 10/10/16, when they rejected the initial appeal.
    Last edited by AJRawlins; 11-10-2016 at 11:46 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Oct 16, 6:27 PM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You haven't added the longer versions of #4 and #5 (as shown in the templates already mentioned). More can be made of 'signage' and 'landowner authority' which might just catch them out. In our experience, really long PE POPLA appeals can see them give up and move on to an easier one, not wasting the man-hours on it. Yours is very short and it doesn't need to be, as you will be attaching it as a PDF on the POPLA webpage so you are unrestricted on wording. As this is PE who will sue if you lose I would have a very strong crack at this now.

    I would add these facts somewhere to help POPLA picture the scene, perhaps added to point #2:



    A passenger was simply dropped off briefly to cancel a membership. Not being a driver he knew nothing off the fact that you have to supply your car details when entering the gym because there were no signs inside the Gym alerting people to this requirement. I contend that the driver merely circled the car park, picked up the passenger and drove out, at no point parking or leaving the vehicle in a bay. The driver had no cause to read nor accept any parking contract because the vehicle did not park and was never adjacent to a sign with any visible terms.

    There may be signs at the boundaries but not all areas are well-signed as a car drives through the middle of the site, so unlike the findings regarding the beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did. An unfair 'out of all proportion' charge for non-parking activity of merely dropping off, picking up and leaving within minutes is precisely the sort of charge that the Beavis case Judges made clear would fail the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged'.

    In simple terms, there can be no contractual relationship without an offer being read and accepted and in this case there was never any agreement on a parking charge as the driver did not park. No 'promise' was made, no offer nor charge was seen, no acceptance of terms occurred and no parking activity took place.

    In the absence of any promise to comply with any primary obligation and due to there being no single 'period of parking', keeper liability under the POFA 2012 is not possible. This is because Schedule 4 is dependent upon the existence of a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' and neither existed for a driver circling the car park. In addition, 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 fails where there was a lack of 'adequate notice' of a charge and where a PCN does not relate to a 'single period of parking'. Here there was no period of parking, merely a wrong assumption made that the car had parked (with no evidence at all) contrary to the Grace Periods set out in the BPA CoP.

    In the Beavis case it was held at 190:

    ''By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.''

    And it was held that: ''the contractual relationship [was] created by Mr Beavis’s acceptance of the terms of the notice’’ and ''But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.’’
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-10-2016 at 7:22 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 11th Oct 16, 11:56 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    I appreciate all the time and trouble you have gone to in my quest for help coupon-mad.

    I have added more about the member and landowner, but am wary to about the signage because even though they are not plain to see on entry, on seeing them the charge is in large lettering. Also it is a small car park.

    Thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Oct 16, 12:06 AM
    • 40,525 Posts
    • 52,411 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK I can see the signage issue, sometimes PE signs are clear(ish) so maybe there is less to say there. although there are often central areas with no signs very near, even in a small car park.

    As the car was only there 12 minutes I would put Grace Periods first, personally.

    And I really would have ALL of this in there because POPLA tend to find in PE's favour in many cases so you need the Assessor to 'get it'. If you lose, PE will sue:

    A passenger was simply dropped off briefly to cancel a membership. Not being a driver he knew nothing off the fact that you have to supply your car details when entering the gym because there were no signs inside the Gym alerting people to this requirement. I contend that the driver merely circled the car park, picked up the passenger and drove out, at no point parking or leaving the vehicle in a bay. The driver had no cause to read nor accept any parking contract because the vehicle did not park and was never adjacent to a sign with any visible terms.

    There may be signs at the boundaries but not all areas are well-signed as a car drives through the middle of the site, so unlike the findings regarding the Beavis case car park, the driver here was certainly not 'bound to' have seen the terms nor could be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did. An unfair 'out of all proportion' charge for non-parking activity of merely dropping off, picking up and leaving within minutes is precisely the sort of charge that the Beavis case Judges made clear would fail the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged'.

    In simple terms, there can be no contractual relationship without an offer being read and accepted and in this case there was never any agreement on a parking charge as the driver did not park. No 'promise' was made, no offer nor charge was seen, no acceptance of terms occurred and no parking activity took place.

    In the absence of any promise to comply with any primary obligation and due to there being no single 'period of parking', keeper liability under the POFA 2012 is not possible. This is because Schedule 4 is dependent upon the existence of a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' and neither existed for a driver circling the car park. In addition, 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 fails where there was a lack of 'adequate notice' of a charge and where a PCN does not relate to a 'single period of parking'. Here there was no period of parking, merely a wrong assumption made that the car had parked (with no evidence at all) contrary to the Grace Periods set out in the BPA CoP.

    In the Beavis case it was held at 190:

    ''By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.''

    And it was held that: ''the contractual relationship [was] created by Mr Beavis’s acceptance of the terms of the notice’’ and ''But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.’’
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-11-2016 at 5:51 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 12th Oct 16, 9:10 AM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    Ok thank you.
    • AJRawlins
    • By AJRawlins 3rd Nov 16, 12:04 PM
    • 25 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    AJRawlins
    Victory..Received an e-mail from POPLA my appeal has been upheld because PE do not wish to contest it, also got one from PE cancelling the charge,.
    So thanks for all the help especially a to coupon-mad who helped a lot
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

611Posts Today

3,658Users online

Martin's Twitter