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
    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 27th Apr 17, 11:41 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 8Thanks
    Djubb78
    ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice
    • #1
    • 27th Apr 17, 11:41 PM
    ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice 27th Apr 17 at 11:41 PM
    I've received a parking charge notice today for £100 from ParkingEye. We had been on holiday in Weymouth, so can't return to the car park to gather evidence to help build a case.

    The date of event: 14/04/2017
    Date pcn issued: 25/04/2017

    Car park: Weymouth Old Town (East) DT4 8US

    Time in car park: 1 hour 11 minutes
    Arrival time: 14/04/2017 10:53:02
    Departure time: 14/07/2017 12:04:05

    I have the driver's parking ticket/receipt which states:

    Issued: Fri 14 Apr 2017 10:55
    Paid £1.20
    Time and date expiry time:
    11:55 14 Apr 17

    Can't I challenge this under the grace period rule which allows a minimum of 10 minutes from the expiry time on my ticket?

    What should I write when I respond to ParkingEye?

    Any help is greatly appreciated
    Last edited by Djubb78; 30-04-2017 at 8:38 PM. Reason: removing personal detail
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Apr 17, 11:46 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 27th Apr 17, 11:46 PM
    • #2
    • 27th Apr 17, 11:46 PM
    Can't I challenge this under the grace period rule which allows a minimum of 10 minutes from the expiry time on my ticket?
    Yes of course - and bung in all the recent stuff found here about Kelvin Reynolds' BPA article and just as importantly, about the minutes of the Board meeting in 2015 where the BPA resolved to set the minumum at least ELEVEN minutes after paid for time (on top of the arrival time which Kelvin R confirmed for the BPA, is a separate set of minutes...observation time to read the signs).

    PE are trying it on again.

    Your example is SHOCKING (a scam) but this is Weymouth Old Town, a cash cow (Google it with the words 'parking eye')!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 28th Apr 17, 8:54 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    • #3
    • 28th Apr 17, 8:54 PM
    Kelvin Reynolds BPA
    • #3
    • 28th Apr 17, 8:54 PM
    Thanks for your reply coupon-mad

    I'm completely new to using forums, where/how do I find the information you've referred to regarding The Kelvin Reynolds BPA article and minutes of boarding from 2015 please?

    Is this template the right one to use? I've included that I have a copy of the driver's parking ticket, is this the right thing to do?

    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. *************

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    The parking charge notice also ignores the driver's right to a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes from the expiry time on the parking receipt.

    In order to resolve the dispute I attach a copy of the driver's parking receipt that day.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,

    My name and address here
    Last edited by Djubb78; 30-04-2017 at 8:40 PM. Reason: Removing personal info
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Apr 17, 10:57 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 28th Apr 17, 10:57 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Apr 17, 10:57 PM
    I'm completely new to using forums, where/how do I find the information you've referred to regarding The I'm completely new to using forums, where/how do I find the information you've referred to regarding The Kelvin Reynolds BPA article and minutes of boarding from 2015 please?
    I won't post links because I strongly believe NEWBIES will be pleasantly surprised when they learn to search the forum and find the info perfect for their case! So search this forum board (not the whole of MSE, NOT THE TOP RIGHT BOX), for:

    'Kelvin Reynolds'

    and separately,

    'Board eleven'


    ...changing the default search to 'show POSTS' not the default 'show threads'. You will find the right drop-down search box level with the 'new thread' button you used before, immediately above the thread list on page one of this parking board, on the right. Not on this page, not at the top of the entire page either.

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

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 17th May 17, 10:37 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    • #5
    • 17th May 17, 10:37 PM
    • #5
    • 17th May 17, 10:37 PM
    I submitted the following appeal to ParkingEye

    Dear Sirs

    Re: PCN No. *****/*****

    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.!Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.

    Parking Eye have also failed to observe and follow the BPA’s code of practice October 2015 regarding grace periods which states:

    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.

    13.4 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.

    Source: BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice version 6 – October 2015

    Also Henry Michael Greenslade the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator wrote in his third annual report 2015:

    “Just as there may appropriately be a grace period at the end of the parking session there must also be a reasonable period before it is deemed to commence.”

    In order to resolve the dispute I attach a copy of the driver's parking receipt that day.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.!

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.!

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Yours faithfully,


    As I expected ParkingEye have replied advising my appeal has been unsuccessful. And that their records show that insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.

    They have provided me with a POPLA Ref:
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th May 17, 10:39 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 17th May 17, 10:39 PM
    • #6
    • 17th May 17, 10:39 PM
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72564627#post72564627

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

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 17th May 17, 10:49 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    • #7
    • 17th May 17, 10:49 PM
    • #7
    • 17th May 17, 10:49 PM
    Here is my first draft POPLA appeal:

    POPLA Ref: **********

    I am the registered keeper and I am appealing this parking charge from ParkingEye at Weymouth Old Town (East) DT4 8US Car Park.

    To protect the driver, they have not been named.

    My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
    1. Insufficient grace period!
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3. Inadequate signage

    1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

    This matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere ELEVEN minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The paid for parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the parking ticket was purchased or at which it expired.!

    The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "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." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

    Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

    ‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

    (Link here)

    In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “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.”

    During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.!

    “Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

    (Link here)

    The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 10:53 and driving out at 12:04 on the same date. The driver has provided a copy of their parking receipt, which was issued at 10:55 and expired at 11:55 on the same day. In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”

    (Copy of drivers parking receipt attached here)

    It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the car park exceeded the paid period by only 11 minutes, a sum of 2 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 9 minutes after the parking period had ended.

    Transport chiefs at Weymouth and Portland Borough Council have criticised ParkingEye's actions in issuing parking charge notices for Weymouth Old Town East car park. A newspaper article showing that local Councillors are aware of the issue since 2011 due to the number of complaints:

    ''Coun Christine James, member for transport and infrastructure, said the council has tried unsuccessfully to arrange a meeting with the company.

    She said: “It’s been going on since about April {2011}...We have tried to speak to them and they have offered to put up more signs but I can’t see what difference that will make. The charges if you go over are astronomical. They are claiming they will give a 10-minute grace period but it doesn’t seem to be happening.''

    (Link here)

    2. 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 in small print 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


    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.!

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.!

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.!

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.!

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''The signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.!

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.!

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''!

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':!

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.!
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.!

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully


    Would really appreciate any feedback on anything that might need changing, adding or improving.

    Thank you
    Last edited by Djubb78; 17-05-2017 at 10:55 PM. Reason: correcting some wrong information
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th May 17, 10:52 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 17th May 17, 10:52 PM
    • #8
    • 17th May 17, 10:52 PM
    Looks good to me, all relevant and you've included all the suggested ammo about grace periods.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 18th May 17, 10:43 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    • #9
    • 18th May 17, 10:43 PM
    • #9
    • 18th May 17, 10:43 PM
    Thanks Coupon-Mad.

    I've now submitted my appeal to POPLA.
    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 7th Jun 17, 12:18 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    I've had the following evidence from ParkingEye.

    Date/Time In 14/04/2017 10:53:02
    Date/Time Out 14/04/2017 12:04:05
    Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
    Time In Car Park 1 hours 11 minutes 3 seconds
    Time Paid For 1 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
    Payment Options Payment Machines
    Number of Paid Parking
    Machines
    2
    History
    14/04/2017 Date of event
    System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request
    24/04/2017 Request queued to DVLA for keeper details
    25/04/2017 DVLA response received - Success
    25/04/2017 Parking Charge Letter Issued - Letter1 - Ltr01-217
    30/04/2017
    11/05/2017
    Email response sent to the motorist advising that ParkingEye have received their
    appeal and they will receive a response within 28 days.
    Website appeal processed, please see section E
    Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system
    (Evidence G)
    11/05/2017 Letter sent to motorist advising appeal unsuccessful as insufficient parking was
    purchased on the date of event & Letter sent to motorist providing information
    confirming the Parking Charge is fair and reasonable and also includes FAQs. – POPLA
    reference and details provided.
    26/05/2017 Letter sent to motorist advising ParkingEye reject all invoices for payment or
    appeal
    Rules and Conditions
    This site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). There are 11 signs, placed at the
    entrance, exit & throughout the site stating the terms and conditions.
    Evidence G
    System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.
    Please find enclosed a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner showing that on the date of the
    parking event ParkingEye had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
    Authority
    ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written
    authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).
    It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence
    of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders
    himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v
    Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be
    enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.
    Further Information
    ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA)
    regulations.
    The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised
    in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on yellow. There is
    sufficient ambient lighting on site and we have highlighted some of the lighting poles within the images.
    (Enclosed)
    There are also signs at the entrance to the car park which adjoin an illuminated public road and so we can
    confirm that there is sufficient ambient lighting at this site.
    As the images show, the vehicle did not have its headlights on when entering the car park. We contend that
    there was clearly enough daylight for the motorist to be confident driving without the use of headlights, and
    therefore the signage would have been fully visible. (We enclose images of the signage in situ in the car park.
    We also include a signage plan to demonstrate the prevalence of the signs).
    Grace period
    ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and
    establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.
    There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All
    grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice.

    Car Park Weymouth Old Town (East) DT4 8US
    In Date/Time 14/04/2017 10:53:02
    Out Date/Time 14/04/2017 12:04:05
    Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes
    Time In Car Park 1 hours 11 minutes
    Time Paid For 1 hours 0 minutes

    There's also a number of photo's of signage and a car park signage layout plan, which I don't seem to be able to copy and paste in here.

    I've worked on some comments to reply to this evidence which I'll include separately
    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 7th Jun 17, 12:20 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    Here is what I was planning to send as my comments. Would appreciate people's thoughts?

    I refer to my appeal point regarding grace periods:

    'It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the car park exceeded the paid period by only 11 minutes, a sum of 2 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 9 minutes after the parking period had ended.'

    and would like to use ParkingEye's own response to evidence a parking charge notice should not have been issued. ParkingEye state:

    'ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.

    There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice.'

    Identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request. As the driver purchased a valid parking ticket and exited the car park within the minimum grace period allowed after the expiry time of that parking ticket, there was no breach of terms and conditions. Therefore ParkingEye had no reasonable cause (i.e. breach of parking regulations) to obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA, which is a data protection act breach.

    System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request (at some point between 14/04/2017 and 24/04/2017) – What check was carried out to identify alleged breach of terms and conditions? As ParkingEye history indicates Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system was only carried out on 11/05/2017.

    History timeline refers to ParkingEye sending email or letters to Motorist, this is inaccurate as ParkingEye only have registered keepers details.

    Rules and conditions – ParkingEye state this site is a Paid Parking car park as clearly stated on the signage(enclosed). There are 11 signs, placed at the entrance, exit and throughout the site stating the terms and conditions. As per my appeal I believe ParkingEye's signs fail the test of 'Large Lettering' and prominence. Are obscure, in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. I would like to use ParkingEye's car park signage layout plan and photo's of signage to help evidence this point.

    Sign Type 1 – Is the only sign displayed outside the entrance to this car park. It's also the only sign on a white background, when all the other signs inside the car park are black text on a yellow background. The only text on this sign that is in black states 'Tariff payable at machine only' The text below 'This car park is private property, see signage in car park for terms and conditions' is in white and a much smaller size font. This sign is also mounted to the top of a pole at a height that would be above a driver's eyeline from a driving position. All of these points make this sign difficult for someone to notice or read. This sign even if noticed by a driver gives them no option but to enter the car park to read the terms and conditions displayed on signage inside, before being able to make a decision whether to park or leave.

    Sign Type 2 - Four are placed on the inside of each of the low exterior walls of the car park. All of the font is very small and the signs would be completely obscured by a car parked in the parking bay directly in front of the sign. One sign is installed on existing lighting column, but with no indication at what height and no photo to show this particular sign institute. I question why ParkingEye have not provided a photo of this particular sign to evidence it is clear and readable to a driver.

    Sign Type 3 – The only real prominent sign is installed between the car parks 2 payment machines. This sign clearly states the following information which makes up the terms and conditions
    1. This is a Pay & Display car park
    2. Parking Tariff
    3. Maximum stay of 24 hours
    4. Please enter the full, correct vehicle registration into the Pay & Display machine when purchasing a ticket.
    5. Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
    6. Park only within marked bays
    7. Blue badge holders only in marked bays – tariffs apply
    8. Strictly no parking on double yellow lines

    Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100

    The driver complied with these terms and conditions, therefore no parking charge notice should have been issued.

    The incredibly small print below the blue box icons is completely unreadable to drivers and whatever it contains cannot be considered to be part of the terms and conditions of parking.

    Sign type 4 - Three are placed on the inside of three of the low exterior walls of the car park. All of the font is quite small and the signs would be completely obscured by a car parked in the parking bay directly in front of the sign. One is placed on a pole at about waist height which is out of the drivers eyeline between the car parks 2 payments machines.

    The sign on page 38 of ParkingEye's evidence which states:

    IMPORTANT INFORMATION Please ensure you purchase a pay and display ticket to cover the full period of time that your vehicle is on site (from time of entry to time of exit)

    This sign is not shown on ParkingEye's own Car park signage layout plan as being installed at the Weymouth Old Town (East) car park, and therefore must be disregarded from the evidence. I suspect it has deliberately been included by ParkingEye in an attempt to falsely support their parking charge notice. This sign would not however waive a drivers statutory right to a minimum 10 minute grace period both before purchasing and after expiry of a free or paid parking period.

    All of ParkingEye's signs state that the Car Park is monitored by ANPR systems, but no enforced by ANPR systems. Signs 2 and 3 state this car park is a Pay and Display car park, which suggests enforcement by a parking attendant, which isn't the case.

    The witness statement should be disregarded from ParkingEye's evidence as it states:

    'The site is Weymouth Old Town (West)'

    And is not relevant to this parking charge notice issued for Weymouth Old Town (East).

    Thanks for your help
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Jun 17, 6:33 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You will have to email these comments to POPLA. Ask them to confirm the Assessor WILL take these comments into account, which would not fit in the Portal.

    Evidence G
    System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.
    Was this so called evidence a ''white list look-up'' showing no matches for your VRN? Or was it a list of payments made at that car park (IMHO, it should be the latter). The former is no evidence ''that insufficient time was purchased'' at all, and usually has no location and/or no date on it, could be a mock up word document, invented from scratch.

    I would change 'statutory' to 'BPA Code of Practice mandatory' here, because there is NO statutory minimum ten minutes relating to private land, only Councils, and I would add to your comments:

    This sign would not however waive a driver's BPA Code of Practice mandatory statutory right to a minimum 10 minute grace period both before purchasing and after expiry of a free or paid parking period.

    The period before paying is defined by the BPA as a separate time that the BPA's Kelvin Reynolds described in detail in a BPA article as an 'observation period', to drive in, park, read signs, decide whether to stay or leave and then to make payment at a machine.

    This is separate from the end of parking 'grace period' and it is disingenuous of ParkingEye to pretend that a two minute 'observation period' on arrival, then a nine minute 'grace period' somehow exceeds the mandatory minimum 'grace period' at the end of any parking event, that the BPA formally agreed to amend in 13.4 of their CoP, in 2015, to at least ELEVEN minutes merely for the process of leaving a car park after expiry of paid-for time.



    As for this (below) hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    The witness statement should be disregarded from ParkingEye's evidence as it states:

    'The site is Weymouth Old Town (West)'

    And is not relevant to this parking charge notice issued for Weymouth Old Town (East).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 07-06-2017 at 6:38 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 7th Jun 17, 9:48 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    It is a Whitelist Lookup, I've tried to copy and paste it below but it doesn't include the borders of the table

    Whitelist Lookup - DU02XRH
    Whitelist Name - Weymouth Old Town (East) - Paid
    Plate - DU02XRH
    Description - Blank
    Start Date/Time - 14/04/2017 10:55:00
    End Date/Time - 14/04/2017 11:55:00
    Input Date/Time - 14/04/2017 10:55:00
    Duration - 1 hr 0 min
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Jun 17, 10:03 PM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ah OK, so it's one that mentions the payment made and date and location, so leave that bit out.

    I would move the point about the Witness statement (West v East - two different locations - spell it out!) up to the top and cut out some of the waffle, because you should win on that alone. When I say waffle, I would remove this, as I never like points that say 'their sign clearly says' (you are almost arguing their side, not yours, here):
    Sign Type 3 – The only real prominent sign is installed between the car parks 2 payment machines. This sign clearly states the following information which makes up the terms and conditions
    1. This is a Pay & Display car park
    2. Parking Tariff
    3. Maximum stay of 24 hours
    4. Please enter the full, correct vehicle registration into the Pay & Display machine when purchasing a ticket.
    5. Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
    6. Park only within marked bays
    7. Blue badge holders only in marked bays – tariffs apply
    8. Strictly no parking on double yellow lines

    Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100

    The driver complied with these terms and conditions, therefore no parking charge notice should have been issued.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 7th Jun 17, 10:42 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    I've deleted the part about sign type 3 as you've suggested. And moved the part about the witness statement to the top, adding some wording so it now says

    'The witness statement should be disregarded from ParkingEye's evidence as it states:

    'The site is Weymouth Old Town (West)'

    And is not relevant to this parking charge notice issued for Weymouth Old Town (East). Two different locations – West v East!'

    Regarding cutting out some of the waffle, would the following comments be better off being removed?

    'System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request (at some point between 14/04/2017 and 24/04/2017) – What check was carried out to identify alleged breach of terms and conditions? As ParkingEye history indicates Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system was only carried out on 11/05/2017.'

    and

    'History timeline refers to ParkingEye sending email or letters to Motorist, this is inaccurate as ParkingEye only have registered keepers details.'

    Thanks for you help
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jun 17, 12:08 AM
    • 48,068 Posts
    • 61,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes I would prune those out and concentrate on the comments that seem like they should win.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 26th Jun 17, 10:01 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    My POPLA appeal has now been assessed and a decision has been made. I've include the assessors response below.

    Decision - Successful

    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at Weymouth Old Town car park where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant’s case is that the operator has not allowed a sufficient grace period. He says that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority of the landowner to manage parking at the site. He says that the signage is not sufficient.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 10:53 and departing at 12:04 on 14 April 2017, as such the vehicle was at the site for 1 hour 11 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of the whitelist lookup, which shows if the vehicle was registered at that car park on the day in question, along with any payments made. I can see that a one-hour parking period was purchased at 10:55 on the day. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA’s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal; however, my report will focus on the ground that the operator has not allowed the appellant a reasonable grace period as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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. Additionally, section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “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 operator has provided evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 10:53, a one-hour parking period was purchased at 10:55 and the appellant left the site at 12:04, nine minutes after the parking period expired. From this I determine that the exceeded time spent at the site was nine minutes and that this time falls within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. In conclusion, I determine that the exceeded time falls within the grace period specified in the BPA Code of Practice and as such, I can only determine that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.


    As the operator has been deemed to have issued the PCN incorrectly, does this give me reasonable grounds to make a claim for compensation for the distress and approx 20 hours I've had to spend fighting this PCN?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 26th Jun 17, 10:04 PM
    • 14,735 Posts
    • 18,514 Thanks
    Redx
    yes it does , because they failed to apply the BPA CoP clause #13 which they signed up to , so its a DPA breach
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 26th Jun 17, 10:10 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    Also, thank you very much to everyone on the MSE forum (especially coupon-mad) who've contributed so much excellent information and advice to help me successfully fight this PCN. I was considering begrudgingly paying the PCN before I found this forum as I felt I had no other choice.
    • Djubb78
    • By Djubb78 26th Jun 17, 11:05 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    Djubb78
    Thanks Redx, I've got a few questions regarding this:

    How long do I have to make a claim for compensation?
    Do I just send an LBC to the PCC and landowner?
    Should I complain to the BPA?
    Should I complain to the DVLA?

    Thanks for your help
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

198Posts Today

1,178Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin