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
    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 26th May 17, 3:11 PM
    • 16Posts
    • 14Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    ParkingEye - pay discount? advice please
    • #1
    • 26th May 17, 3:11 PM
    ParkingEye - pay discount? advice please 26th May 17 at 3:11 PM
    Hi, new to forum, will try to be brief and accurate.

    Driver parked at a private car park monitored by ParkingEye on 24th April. They knew it was pay and display but at the time could not see any pay machines. The signs near the car had 'pay by phone' instructions.
    So the driver first tried the phone number from the sign, after a lengthy automated call it transpired they couldn't use that service as an account first had to be created and a card registered. So using the website from the signs, the driver sat in car and setup an account online on mobile phone. The process was time consuming and ridiculous (what if a driver has no internet?).
    Eventually a parking fee was paid for 2 hours.

    About 10 days later I receive the PCN from ParkingEye as the registered keeper of the car, which included entry/exit photos. Unknown to the driver, it turned out the parking timer starts upon entry to the car park and not from the moment payment is made as assumed.

    Now.... I have read the newbies sticky along with a number of similar ParkingEye posts but I need a little advice.

    The PCN is the less fortunate type which DOES include the paragraph on POFA 2012 and registered keeper etc.
    I've followed the advice, appealed to ParkingEye first (as the registered keeper, not declaring who was driving) and received my POPLA reference with their rejection letter and an extension on the 'discounted' parking charge.

    However, I'm now considering just paying the £60 rather than risk rejection appealing to POPLA and paying £100. Originally, I refused to pay as I thought it unfair they started the timer before making the driver go through the whole 'pay by phone' method but looking closely at the times the driver did in fact still overstay by 20 minutes even when taking the payment time as the start time and not the ANPR image entry time. The driver was back at the car before the time was up but did not leave immediately.

    So in fairness the driver did overstay. I don't think I really have grounds to appeal. Thoughts?

    Thanks in advance
    Last edited by RayBoy1528; 27-05-2017 at 2:28 PM.
Page 2
    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 5th Jun 17, 9:29 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    Hi everyone, below is my updated letter to POPLA.

    I have redrafted ANPR section and grace period section and removed paragraphs from ANPR section per c-m advice. Please can someone check over these changes before I sent to POPLA?

    I really appreciate all the help so far, many thanks!


    Dear POPLA adjudicator,

    POPLA Reference XXXXXXX
    Incident date XXXXXXX
    Car registration XXXXXXX
    PCN Number XXXXXXX
    Operator Name PARKINGEYE

    I write to make my formal appeal in respect of the above detailed Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at Britannia Adelphi Liverpool car park.
    I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the below points:

    1) No evidence of Landowner Authority
    2) The ANPR system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system
    3) Unclear and Inadequate Signage
    4) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

    1) 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


    2) The ANPR system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system

    ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) records show no parking time, merely photos of my car driving in and out. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of ‘parking time’ as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a ‘Pay By Phone’ system which the driver can only access after parking and then by undertaking a lengthy online registration process in order to make payment. The exit photo is not evidence of ‘parking time’ at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the ‘Pay By Phone’ clock nor even to relate to the same parking event that evening.

    The driver had great difficulty paying for parking in this event due to the ‘Pay By Phone’ method instructed by the small and unclear signs in the car park. The signs, which instruct the driver to pay for parking over an automated phone line, fail to declare that an account must be created online first. The subsequent time attributed to the automated call and then to creating an online account and registering a payment card before being able to make payment (evidenced in screenshot below) has taken significant time in this event, time which has secretly counted against the permitted parking duration, unknowingly to the driver due to the breach of BPA CoP section 21.1 as detailed below.

    (bank statement screen grab of payment to PE here)

    The driver was unaware that they were required to pay from the point of entry to the car park and not from the time they purchased their ticket. ParkingEye is using ANPR technology to record and calculate the duration of stay for vehicles so has failed to apply the appropriate grace period, both at the beginning and end of the parking event.

    Section 21.1 of the British Parking Assoaciation Code of Practice states:

    “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

    The signage displayed in the car park does display a logo associated with ANPR, however the signage does not inform the driver that the data captured is used to calculate their stay or any statement that makes this implicit to the driver. As ParkingEye have not met the BPA requirements with regards to ANPR signage, I contest that the driver has not been made aware of this and could only reasonably assume the time stated on their ticket as the start of the parking time.

    The arrival time is recorded on the PCN as 18:36:55 and Departure Time: 21:08:48 which equates to 2 hours 31 minutes and does NOT include the time that it took the driver to find a space, park, read the signs, create an online account and purchase a ticket using the ‘Pay By Phone’ system.

    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:

    imgur.com/a/AkMCN

    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.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001

    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.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx

    ''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.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html

    ''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:

    bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

    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.

    In addition, it is mandated in the BPA CoP that the operator displays the BPA and AOS on all sites. Section 28.6 of the CoP states:
    “You should display the BPA and AOS logos on all sites. This will help the public to see that you are a legitimate operator, and show that the site is run properly.”
    The driver has no recollection of seeing these logos displayed, therefore I put ParkingEye to strict proof to provide evidence of this site displaying these logos.


    4) Grace periods unclear and not properly applied

    The BPA Code of Practice (CoP) makes it mandatory for operators to allow grace periods at the start and end of parking, before enforcement action can be taken.

    The CoP states:
    “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.”

    For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

    In the case of this event, the first grace period must also allow time to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system in place at this site. A system which requires first time users to read the signs, go online, create an account with the system and register a payment card before a parking ticket can be purchased.

    Kelvin Reynolds of the BPA says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

    britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

    Good car parking practice includes ‘grace’ periods

    “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.

    The BPA (Kelvin Reynolds is the Director of Policy & Public Affairs) is on record as shown above, as saying that the 'observation period' at the start might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes, depending on various factors”.

    The alleged overstay, given Kelvin Reynolds' defined 'observation time' and the type of businesses at the location is certainly possible. Time would have been taken just driving in, no doubt in a queue, dodging groups of pedestrians carrying shopping and also waiting for other cars turning and reversing to park or leave, before reaching an empty bay then parking. After that, an average driver must unstrap any children, buggy, bags, then go to the display machine, read the terms and conditions and also the instructions of the machine to get the ticket.

    Taking both BPA 'Observation' and 'Grace' Periods into account, considering the type and location of this busy car park and unreliability of timestamped evidence on the photographs supplied and time associated with the ‘Pay By Phone’ system, I contend that the PCN was not properly given.

    ParkingEye are using ANPR technology to calculate the duration of stay from recorded entry and exit times. This duration of stay is in fact ‘time on site’ and not time ‘parked’. By issuing this PCN based on the entry/exit times, ParkingEye have failed to apply the minimum grace period and so have breached section 13 of the BPA CoP.


    Conclusion

    ParkingEye have failed to comply with BPA Code of Practice on multiple accounts.

    I contend it is wholly unreasonable and unfair to issue this PCN for overstaying a parking ticket purchased when the ‘Pay By Phone’ service requires a lengthy online registration process prior to paying when the parking timer has already started on entering the site, thus not applying the grace period and breaching the code.

    The Terms and Conditions on the signs within the car park make no suggestion of what the ANPR images will be used for, a breach of BPA code, and so it can only be reasonably assumed that the parking start time is from the moment the parking ticket is purchased.

    I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed.

    Yours sincerely,

    XXXX
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jun 17, 8:28 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,106 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The arrival time is recorded on the PCN as 18:36:55 and Departure Time: 21:08:48 which equates to 2 hours 31 minutes and does NOT include allow for the time that it took the driver to find a space, park, read the signs, create an online account and purchase a ticket using the ‘Pay By Phone’ system.
    Suggested change above, because 2hrs 31 mins does *include* that time.
    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.

    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 6th Jun 17, 10:19 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    Suggested change above, because 2hrs 31 mins does *include* that time.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks c-m, I've updated my letter with this change.

    The only thing I'm not sure on before I send this off to POPLA is whether or not to attach a copy of the parking ticket. Will I shoot myself in the foot by giving POPLA the evidence that I overstayed 20 minutes after my parking time expired? Am I better off embedding a screenshot of my bank statement which shows payment coming out to ParkingEye but no times?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Jun 17, 11:05 AM
    • 15,490 Posts
    • 24,201 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Only show POPLA that which benefits you.

    Remember, it is for PE to prove their case.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 8th Jun 17, 10:05 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    Submitted my appeal to POPLA this morning...so now I wait.

    Thanks for all the advice so far

    How long does it usually take to receive PE evidence pack?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 8th Jun 17, 10:20 AM
    • 15,490 Posts
    • 24,201 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Submitted my appeal to POPLA this morning...so now I wait.

    Thanks for all the advice so far

    How long does it usually take to receive PE evidence pack?
    Originally posted by RayBoy1528
    From submission of your POPLA appeal to having a decision takes around 4 - 6 weeks. Once you receive the PE evidence pack you have 7 days to respond, once your response is submitted, the POPLA decision comes pretty quickly.

    PE will send a mahoosive evidence pack to you - so be prepared for that, and as it's page upon page upon page of mostly template stuff it could come relatively quickly (but I don't have knowledge of a pattern to say you can expect this in x days/weeks).

    You may not even get an evidence pack, this is where, having seen your appeal, PE throw their cards in and concede. You then get a swift email from POPLA to confirm cancellation.

    So each day that goes by with no evidence pack is a good one - but don't be surprised if 2 postmen turn up to carry one into your house!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 15th Jun 17, 10:54 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    POPLA notified me yesterday that PE had submitted their evidence pack, which I could view online. PE have not sent their evidence directly to me, nor notified me that they have sent it to POPLA, is this breaking BPA code?

    There is a signed statement on the first page of the evidence pack saying :
    "I confirm that the Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with current POPLA requirements".
    I've been sent nothing from them, so I will raise this in my response to POPLA.

    From my first comb through their evidence pack, the two big things that jump out:

    1. Landowner Authority
    Despite requesting an un-redacted copy of the contract in my POPLA appeal, PE have not included any evidence of landowner authority, neither contract nor witness statement.

    Landowner authority is only addressed with this paragraph:

    "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)."

    No evidence included to back this up. I see this as a win.


    2. Signage
    Numerous photos of the signs as seen from ground level at the site and also isolated samples included. In all examples the terms cannot be read on the signs. The font is so small even zooming in on the high quality isolated image renders the wording unreadable. So I cannot even read the terms on my computer screen let alone from ground level with the sign mounted high up on a lamp post.


    So far I'm hopeful my appeal will be successful
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Jun 17, 11:07 AM
    • 15,490 Posts
    • 24,201 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    POPLA notified me yesterday that PE had submitted their evidence pack, which I could view online. PE have not sent their evidence directly to me, nor notified me that they have sent it to POPLA, is this breaking BPA code?

    There is a signed statement on the first page of the evidence pack saying :
    "I confirm that the Appellant has been sent copies of all evidence in accordance with current POPLA requirements".
    I've been sent nothing from them, so I will raise this in my response to POPLA.
    Recently changed procedure as some PPCs were saying they'd sent evidence packs and hadn't. Others were sending slightly different packs to the ones submitted to POPLA.

    So POPLA have now made online access available for motorists to see exactly the same as they have received. So not a point for you to argue in your rebuttal.

    You can be grateful PE didn't actually post their pack to you - often it can run to over 100 pages.

    Keep combing through what you have and dispute any and every point that is wrong, inaccurate or that you disagree with - you seem to have made a good start.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jun 17, 10:57 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,106 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    PE have not sent their evidence directly to me, nor notified me that they have sent it to POPLA, is this breaking BPA code?
    Nope, as Umkomaas says, POPLA changed their procedure. It seems that POPLA haven't changed the wording on the standard evidence cover sheet, so that's actually POPLA's own fault.

    1. Landowner Authority
    Despite requesting an un-redacted copy of the contract in my POPLA appeal, PE have not included any evidence of landowner authority, neither contract nor witness statement.

    Landowner authority is only addressed with this paragraph:

    "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)."

    No evidence included to back this up. I see this as a win.
    You will win, then.
    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.

    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 19th Jun 17, 4:40 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    This is what I have for my rebuttal of PE evidence pack. I have tried to keep this concise and to the point. Please let me know if this is too long, or if I need to add more weight.


    Rebuttal to evidence submitted by ParkingEye to POPLA

    Ref. POPLA appeal: XXXX
    PCN Number: XXXX
    Date evidence pack received: 14/06/2017

    Dear POPLA Assessor,

    In response to the 39 page evidence pack submitted by ParkingEye, I provide the following rebuttal points in the order they have been laid out in the evidence pack:

    1. Authority

    No evidence of landowner authority has been provided to show that ParkingEye are abiding by the BPA Code of Practice.

    ParkingEye were put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code in the original POPLA appeal. Quoting page 5 Section B of the evidence pack:

    “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).”

    Whilst ParkingEye have made this statement, they have provided no single piece of evidence to back up this claim. By failing to provide an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner, ParkingEye have failed to show that they are in full compliance with section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.


    2. Grace Period

    In rebuttal to the claim made by ParkingEye on page 5 Section B that:

    “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”

    I submit that ParkingEye have failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, despite claiming otherwise. I refer back to the point made in my original POPLA appeal:

    “ParkingEye are using ANPR technology to calculate the duration of stay from recorded entry and exit times. This duration of stay is in fact ‘time on site’ and not time ‘parked’. By issuing this PCN based on the entry/exit times, ParkingEye have failed to apply the minimum grace period both before and after the parking event and so have breached section 13 of the BPA CoP.”

    It is clear from the “In” and “Out” times specified on page 11 of the evidence pack, extracted from ParkingEye’s own ANPR entry/exit photos, that they are calculating the length of stay based solely on these two times. By taking the difference between these two times and comparing this directly to the time paid for, no consideration of the grace period has been applied in the calculation.


    3. Signage

    The evidence pack claims a total of 18 signs throughout the site. Of these 18, only 1 (type 1b) states payment can be made at machine or by phone, reference page 27. This single sign is only seen on one side of the car park only, referencing the signage plan on page 28. However, the photos provided by ParkingEye call into question the existence of this sign.

    It is claimed on page 6 of Section B:

    “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 white background.”

    This statement is contradicted by the ‘black on yellow’ signs clearly seen in the background of the photo on page 24 Section F, the only photo of type 1b sign on the site. As the evidence pack claims all signs on this site are ‘black on white’ and this is backed up by the close up samples provided, the legitimacy that the photo on page 24 is actually of a sign on this site is called into question.

    In addition, the location of the type 1b sign in the photo on page 24 does not match its location on the signage plan, page 28. In the photo supposedly taken on the site, the sign is next to the pay machine however the two are observably at some distance from each other according to the signage plan. Clearly the evidence is not consistent.

    Furthermore, the terms and conditions are in such a small font that the wording is unreadable even when zooming in on the close up photo on page 31, let alone from ground level in low lighting. It simply would not be possible to read any terms on the sign without leaving the vehicle, which is in direct violation of section 28.8 of the BPA Code of Practice.

    Once again, I request that my appeal is upheld,

    Yours faithfully,
    XXX
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Jun 17, 6:15 PM
    • 51,504 Posts
    • 65,106 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks fine. You will have to email that as it won't fit on the Portal.
    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.

    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 19th Jun 17, 7:19 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    Thanks c-m

    Should this be a reply to the email from info@popla.co.uk or another address?

    Will the portal update with my email response or can I expect to receive an email confirmation? Just worried the email doesn't get seen.
    Last edited by RayBoy1528; 19-06-2017 at 7:29 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 19th Jun 17, 8:27 PM
    • 15,490 Posts
    • 24,201 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Will the portal update with my email response or can I expect to receive an email confirmation? Just worried the email doesn't get seen
    That's best checked with POPLA - give them a call. Straight from the horse's mouth - latest information. No need to fear making a phone call to them.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • RayBoy1528
    • By RayBoy1528 7th Jul 17, 4:26 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    RayBoy1528
    Hello everyone,

    I got my appeal result back from POPLA a few days ago...SUCCESSFUL!!!

    Appeal upheld on grounds of landowner authority.

    Thank you so much to everyone here that helped. I can't believe I was considering paying the discount!!

    Here is the redacted POPLA response:

    POPLA assessment and decision
    03/07/2017
    Verification Code
    **********
    Decision
    Successful
    Assessor Name
    Louise Dack

    Assessor summary of operator case

    On ****** vehicle ******* was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking for longer than the period of time paid for.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site, the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and fails to take into account the time it takes to use the ‘Pay By Phone’ system, a period has not been applied and that the signage on site is inadequate.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    The appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal however; I will concentrate this appeal on landowner authority. The appellant states the operator does not have authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN). In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, the operator has failed to provide a contract of landowner authority and as a result I am unable to confirm if the contract meets the requirement of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7. Therefore, in this case, I am unable to confirm that the operator has landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 7th Jul 17, 4:45 PM
    • 16,504 Posts
    • 20,667 Thanks
    Redx
    excellent news

    please add this thread as a link , with the name of the PPC and the decision above added, in the POPLA DECISIONS sticky thread at the top of this forum , so others can refer back to it for help in their appeals

    thanks , and well done

    and bear in mind that PE refused your appeal and POPLA passed it , so as PE have probably accessed your data from the DVLA you may be able to claim for a DPA breach, if you can prove it
    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
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Jul 17, 6:59 PM
    • 15,490 Posts
    • 24,201 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    If they can't produce a landowner authority to POPLA (and it's hardly a difficult task if they've actually got one) the only inference that can be drawn is that they don't have the authority to issue tickets, therefore fail to comply with the BPA Code of Practice, a sanctionable event, and a possible breach of the Data Protection Act principles.

    @OP - you should complain about this to the BPA (breach of CoP), to David Dunford of the DVLA and to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) both on the potential DPA breach.

    Winning motorists should not just be breathing a sigh of relief that a POPLA success is the end of it. If we are to truly hit these parking companies as hard as they hit motorists, a POPLA win should often be merely a starting point for the counterattack.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 07-07-2017 at 8:44 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
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

194Posts Today

1,579Users online

Martin's Twitter