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
    • AndreasA
    • By AndreasA 14th Mar 17, 12:39 PM
    • 21Posts
    • 14Thanks
    AndreasA
    Parking Eye Appeal Rejected - Charged £100 for 16 minutes.
    • #1
    • 14th Mar 17, 12:39 PM
    Parking Eye Appeal Rejected - Charged £100 for 16 minutes. 14th Mar 17 at 12:39 PM
    Hi there,

    I've read quite a bit of topics on this, and followed the MSE guide to appealing directly to the private parking company, which I did.
    Today I have just received an email with my appeal rejected, the summary of which is:
    "Our records confirm that no parking was purchased on the date of the parking event, despite there being payment methods available on the day in question."

    I don't currently have a copy of the letter I sent (at work and quite distressed), but this is the situation:

    I had family in town, and they were staying at a hotel in Leeds and I've agreed to meet up with them, so I'm on Parkopedia to find areas near the hotel where I can park. After finding one, I go there, and drive in. There are tons of available parking spaces. Unfortunately, this particular site takes cash only, and I haven't got any. I call the family just to see how they are getting along, and they are just finishing breakfast at the hotel, so I loiter around in the car for a little bit searching for another place to park on Parkopedia. After this, I drive out again and park and pay at this other location and meet up with the family, job done.

    Except I then get charged £100 for having parked and not payed for 16 MINUTES.
    I was completely taken aback that they would even charge for such a small amount of time. Note that I was sat in the car in the entire time, with the engine switched on but not running.
    If there had been an actual parking attendant walking around, in hindsight maybe he would just have asked me to leave, and I could have done just that. This just seems outrageous.

    Have I got any rights here? Like I said I appealed directly to ParkingEye first, but this was rejected. They have provided me with a POPLA reference number, so I'm wondering if this is worth escalating? If so, how do I go about this next step?

    Alternatively, should I just suck it up and pay the charge?

    I am absolutely furious, but I don't know if I should be furious with myself, ParkingEye or both..

    Hope there are someone who can help me as soon as possible so I can get this sorted and stop worrying.

    Kind regards,
    Andreas A.
Page 3
    • AndreasA
    • By AndreasA 17th Apr 17, 8:58 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    AndreasA
    Hi guys,

    I have put their evidence sections in this google drive folder, please let me know if you are having trouble viewing it:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-FxIdUhMxIodjlBd2pTSThsRk0

    Many thanks
    Andreas
    • AndreasA
    • By AndreasA 18th Apr 17, 7:52 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    AndreasA
    I only have two days left to comment on the evidence. Any help you can offer would be greatly appreciated.
    • AndreasA
    • By AndreasA 20th Apr 17, 2:21 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    AndreasA
    Bump.
    I am down to my final day of commenting on the evidence I was sent by ParkingEye, and I'm not sure what to reply with.. If anyone would be so kind to look over the evidence I was sent, which I have put here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-FxIdUhMxIodjlBd2pTSThsRk0
    And see if I have any grounds on which I can add comments on, that would be so appreciated! I'd really hate to lose this case and right now I'm worried I will..!
    Please help if you can.

    Kind regards
    Andreas
    • paulstevens64
    • By paulstevens64 20th Apr 17, 3:11 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    paulstevens64
    Hi OP

    Have you searched the forum for POPLA Rebuttal" as CM said 4 days ago?


    You really have to read up on other cases to help yourself. Find other POPLA rebuttals, and then use them as the basis for tearing apart all of the evidence that has been submitted.
    • AndreasA
    • By AndreasA 20th Apr 17, 4:21 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    AndreasA
    I have had a look around, but I'm having some difficulty finding cases with rebuttal examples. Should I add extra comments to my appeal points I made in my original POPLA appeal?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Apr 17, 1:20 AM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,384 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi guys,

    I have put their evidence sections in this google drive folder, please let me know if you are having trouble viewing it:
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-FxIdUhMxIodjlBd2pTSThsRk0

    Many thanks
    Andreas
    Originally posted by AndreasA
    Right everyone!

    Have a look for the mysterious disappearing/reappearing and repositioned sign that PE suggest was immediately behind the black machine on the left inside the entrance, near the CCTV sign on the wall behind it.

    Look at the various photos purporting to show the situation on 30.1.15. Compare and contrast!

    In two views, that sign simply is not there.

    In another pic, it's there facing you at an odd height at a right angle behind the machine. Oddly blurry words/too distant/too low. Photoshopped?

    In another view taken from the position where cars are parked to the right of the P&D machine, the purported sign is now not next to the machine and no longer at the right angle it was at in the pic of the machine, it now faces the parking row. Still looks photoshopped and was not likely to be the style of sign in place in Jan 2015 anyway. And is zero evidence of the signs in 2017.

    And the entrance pic from 2014 shows the really old 'City Parking' Aire Street black signs on the right, low down at the entrance. This conflicts with the stock examples of the signs and the so-called aerial view of signs which are simply not there in the photos. The stock pictures don't even account for the black 'City Parking' signs - so which evidence is actually correct (if at all) is POPLA meant to guess?

    All photos in the 'evidence' are ancient and misleading, possibly photoshopped (see above for the mysterious now-you-see-it, now-you-don't sign that is imagined (or not?) to be behind the P&D machine. All photos shown were taken in 2014 or January 2015, when the car park was owned by a different company altogether and the tariffs and terms were not those under the contract shown dated 1.4.16 and it is not believed that the disappearing sign was even there, so the 'evidence' appears concocted/doctored.

    All views fail to demonstrate the '15 signs' that PE say are there in 2017 and this is vital not just because time has passed but because the car park has changed owners since then.

    The signage evidence utterly fails to show where the signs are or what they say in 2017. The aerial view is unproven by photos and could merely be an imaginary game of join the dots.

    That contract dated 1.4.16 is not only showing PE have supposedly been contracted by another parking firm 'Elite Parking' (who are not shown to be or believed to be the landowners) but it is so heavily redacted that it is impossible to make out the terms, the exemptions, times of operation, tariffs, whether PE or 'Elite Parking' are the party who have authority from the (separate) landowner to enforce contracts in the courts if necessary. In fact nothing at all in that blacked out document shows the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement (nor even how 'Elite Parking' can be a party and how they interact with ParkingEye, since neither are the landowner).

    This fails to comply with 7.3 of the BPA CoP, as required to be evidenced in the appeal already made.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 21-04-2017 at 7:11 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Apr 17, 7:10 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,384 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I have had a look around, but I'm having some difficulty finding cases with rebuttal examples. Should I add extra comments to my appeal points I made in my original POPLA appeal?
    Originally posted by AndreasA
    Bumping this to make sure you have seen the issues with the unproven/dodgy signage 'evidence' and contract and have now emailed your comments to POPLA, urgently?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • AndreasA
    • By AndreasA 28th Apr 17, 11:58 AM
    • 21 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    AndreasA
    Thanks CM, I managed to have a look through the evidence pack and saw several holes in it, not least of which is an undated contract and outdated pictures!
    I just got a decision from POPLA last night.

    Long story short...
    I WON!!!

    Here is the full POPLA decision:

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant says that he was the driver of the vehicle and due to the specific conditions of the badly maintained car park, he decided to locate a more user-friendly site elsewhere. He says that the operator has not applied a grace period when issuing the PCN and he was not aware that he was being timed from the moment that he entered the site. • He says that he puts the operator to strict proof that it has a proprietary interest in the land and it meets the requirements as set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The appellant says that the signs within the car park are non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice; they are not clear or legible from all parking spaces. • He says that the signage does not state how the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system will be used to capture data or that the time starts upon entry to the site.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without making a payment for parking. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal, however, my report will focus on the ground that he puts the operator to strict proof that it has a proprietary interest in the land and it meets the requirements as set out in the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA Code of Practice states in section 7.1 “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The operator has provided a redacted copy of the contract between itself and the landowner. While I can see that there is a contract, I am unable to see the ‘effective date’ of the contract due to the quality of the contract provided. As I cannot read the effective date on the contract, I cannot determine that the operator had the authority to issue PCNs at the site on the date in question. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to address the appellant’s other grounds of appeal.


    Huge thank you to everyone here who helped me win this!!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Apr 17, 11:37 PM
    • 48,883 Posts
    • 62,384 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Well done!

    That evidence pack though, appeared to include doctored photos...you could report it to the BPA but they will likely sweep it under the carpet - and it would make PE improve their evidence packs. Better that we know PE's level of trash in Aire Street evidence packs, for future cases!

    Please can you update 'POPLA DECISIONS' with a link to this thread, saying it was 'ParkingEye at Aire Street' so poeple might find your posts when searching?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

544Posts Today

5,343Users online

Martin's Twitter