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
    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 13th Sep 17, 1:07 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 2Thanks
    dkmaxx
    Parkingeye ticket Tower Road, Newquay
    • #1
    • 13th Sep 17, 1:07 PM
    Parkingeye ticket Tower Road, Newquay 13th Sep 17 at 1:07 PM
    Hi,

    I unfortunately have come to this site late as i filled in an online appeal which has been declined, as part of the appeals there is a drop down and i cannot remember if i selected the registered keeper or the driver. they have given me the POPLA reference number.

    The short version is i paid for 4 hours and according to their cameras i was there for 4 hours 35 minutes on the 25/08/2017,

    I do remember this as there was a huge queue for the machine as a lot of people were complaining that the machine wasn't giving change so i opted to pay via the app, which apparently was supposed to send alerts but didn't. so there was a delay between the camera clocking me on the way in and paying for the duration.

    on the way out there was a vehicle that was blocking us in and we where waiting a while until the other family had finished loading up before we could leave the car park.

    We paid for 4 hours, as mentioned as part of the appeal i can't recall if i put myself as the driver or registered keeper or both,

    Any assistance on this would be wonderful.
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Sep 17, 1:20 PM
    • 33,276 Posts
    • 17,205 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 13th Sep 17, 1:20 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Sep 17, 1:20 PM
    Everyone is politely asked to read the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

    Go there now for lots of advice on preparing your popla appeal which you can put up here for comments
    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 13th Sep 17, 1:37 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    • #3
    • 13th Sep 17, 1:37 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Sep 17, 1:37 PM
    Ok So i have read the newbies, and as mentioned i cannot be sure if i have select driver owner or both in the drop down box during my appeal, does this mean that i can still use the no NTK letter ??
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Sep 17, 1:42 PM
    • 15,548 Posts
    • 24,259 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #4
    • 13th Sep 17, 1:42 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Sep 17, 1:42 PM
    As well as following Quentin's good advice, read other Tower Road cases that have cropped up over the past 6 weeks as all will be in a similar position to you, and in the main, advice there will apply to you too.

    If you want to check that specific advice from the other threads applies to you, just ask, but don't come back with unresearched questions necessitating regulars having to type out the same advice that you can easily find here. Do a forum search on 'Tower Road' to bring up dozens of cases.

    Holiday periods always see a disproportionate number of Newquay parking cases, I wonder how much this is really costing Newquay in future business?

    Write to the Newquay Council, to the Newquay Tourist Board and to the local MP, Steve Double to express your disgust at your treatment as a genuine tourist coming to Newquay for rest and recreation, only to go home with a headache and a big bill.
    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.
    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 2nd Oct 17, 9:30 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:30 AM
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:30 AM
    ok so i have done quite a bit of reading and here is my go at an appeal letter, feed back is really welcome,

    The circumstances are that 2 adults 2 children and a dog were in the vehicle and we apparently stayed over by 34 minutes in the carpark during the peak of the holidays, I'm not sure if i need to play on that bit more anyway here it goes.

    Dear POPLA adjudicator,

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

    I am writing to challenge a parking charge notice received for parking at the TowerRoad, Newquay car park on **/07/2017.

    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 34 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."

    Kelvin 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.”’

    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.”
    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.

    It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period by only 34 minutes.

    ParkingEye have failed to inform me of the amount of time spent prior to the driver purchasing the ticket and the time spent after the paid for period ended. I object to the unclear information in the PCN and reserve the right to comment when PE finally show the timings transparently.

    By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

    In this case there was nothing on the signs at the entrance or anywhere seen, that informed the driver that the timing could possibly start at the point of entry. The driver had no idea; nor does the Pay and Display machine give people any information to suggest that the time on the printed ticket is actually wrong and misleading. Surely this is a misleading business practice, any reasonable driver would expect the time to start when the ticket is printed (which is the point that the contract is effected) and rely upon their hour expiring when the receipt says - anything else is perverse and a twisted interpretation of contract law.
    It must be noted that upon entering the carp park, we had to drive round in the peak of summer holidays trying to find a space, then queuing for the machine. The machine did not give change and caused a large number of drivers distress as they did not have the right change and this is what had created the queue. When I got to a close enough range I decided to download the I-phone Application and pay via the app. At this point a considerable amount of time had gone by before I had even paid unaware that I had consumed a parking period before I had even purchased the ticket. leaving the car park there were delays caused by pedestrians with surf boards which again created a huge queue to leave the carpark and also turning/parking cars. The driver also had to give way to those cars newly arriving as the car park route narrows as you pass parked cars on both sides, then we had to queue for quite a while at the exit until we could rejoin the main road (which is extremely busy, being the route to Fistral Beach and with the way cars were parked on the main road it was a single lane of traffic).

    It is noted that the 'exit' ANPR camera records the VRN only when at the very front/actually exiting onto the road, despite the fact this is a main road where a car cannot possibly turn straight out immediately even if there is no queue (which there was).

    It is clear from the above that ParkingEye have failed to allow an acceptable for this time of year Grace Period set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Adequate time must be allowed and this would differ from site to site, allowing for the issues I have mentioned above which are specific to a busy beach car park adjacent to a main road, where a car can't just leave within seconds without ploughing into pedestrians or other cars!
    1/2
    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 2nd Oct 17, 9:32 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:32 AM
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 9:32 AM
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 10:01 AM
    • 51,537 Posts
    • 65,144 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:01 AM
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:01 AM
    I'm not sure if i need to play on that bit more
    Play on it hugely, and explain exactly what held you up at the start, registering for the app, and then describe in another detailed paragraph, the traffic and people and hold-ups at the end. Describe in detail how large and extremely busy the car park was with pedestrians, wandering children and lots of traffic, being a very popular beach car park in Newquay, and that 25th was the start of August Bank Holiday weekend.

    Please read the latest posts in POPLA Decisions - I added a link last night to a case won, where the Assessor was impressed by the information given about people walking around with surfboards and beach paraphernalia, such that cars just can't plough in and out in mere minutes! Say that, mention surfboards and beach gear and people and cars turning ...

    Lay it on WITH A TROWEL in your first point, really descriptive about arrival delays in finding a space as well as registering for the app, and then a big description of what delayed the car from getting to the exit, where there was a queue anyway as the main road as a traffic light.

    Was your PCN received within 14 days? If so then it doesn't matter if you describe this as the driver, because staying in 'keeper mode' is only relevant for a late PE PCN.
    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.

    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 2nd Oct 17, 10:41 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:41 AM
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 10:41 AM
    ok i so if i slot this in below as it is more reasons, which did happen on the day

    " on returning to our car with 2 adults 2 children and a dog we had decided to open the windows and door to let the car cool down, there was also a large camper van that had pulled out and was being loaded up up with their surfboards, and beach equipment in the driving area of the car park as they could not open the side doors because of how close the cars where parked together, we did not envisage this being an issue as the carp park was barley moving and we had returned to our vehicle on what we believed to be on time."

    I'll also put in a part about it being the hottest week of the year too which its was beautiful weather for us that week.

    In terms of the app there are functions on there that might as well be not fit for purpose. " the app has an activity tab but doesn't show my history. in the setting it has the option for a notification, but i never received any notifications that my parking has expired. i have double checked this by paying for and hour recently and not received a notification. or do i leave the app information out ?"

    evidence do i need to acquire this as I live 400 miles away from the car park
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 11:39 AM
    • 51,537 Posts
    • 65,144 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 11:39 AM
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 11:39 AM
    we did not envisage this being an issue as the carp park was barley moving
    Two typos above.

    In terms of the app there are functions on there that might as well be not fit for purpose. " the app has an activity tab but doesn't show my history. in the setting it has the option for a notification, but i never received any notifications that my parking has expired. i have double checked this by paying for and hour recently and not received a notification. or do i leave the app information out ?"
    Include reference to how cumbersome the system is, hence why it took time after parking, locking the car, queuing for the machine/signage terms, then reading the signs, deciding to use the app as you didn't have sufficient change...blah blah...then the app itself is cumbersome and with a fleeting signal at the beach, not fit for purpose...etc.

    Describe it all, every painful step, to actually pay to park, and state that ParkingEye haven't even shown you how much time elapsed at the start, and how much time elapsed at the end.

    Add a point stating that the ANPR system is not joined in any way to the PDT system timer that prints the tickets. Put them to strict proof, like this:

    Tower Road car park is a very large Fistral beach car park site and the ANPR system is not connected to the Pay and Display system. This is wholly separate and runs to its own timing on tickets, which does not match the ANPR camera times. POPLA Assessor, do not be misled or over-impressed by ParkingEye telling you their system is all-singing all dancing and used by NATO and Buckingham Palace.

    That is the operator's usual template, trying to blind POPLA with science and whilst it may be true of the ANPR camera system itself, it tells you nothing at all about the separate Pay and Display clock running to print the tickets. You will notice when you look for it, that they provide no evidence whatsoever that the P&D machines are synchronised in any way in terms of the clocks, to the timers running within the cameras.

    Because they are not. The systems are separate, can be minutes out from the time printed on a ticket, skewing the entire 'evidence' and grace periods argument. I put ParkingEye to strict proof otherwise.


    evidence do i need to acquire this as I live 400 miles away from the car park
    So do most appellants live hundreds of miles away - this is a relentless and we/local Cornwall MPs would say a wholly unfair, even aggressive targeting of holidaymakers by bullyboy cowboys, making everyone feel powerless, and pursuing them for the time taken to get in and out of a hugely busy beach car park, when not actually parked.

    We see this all the time, e.g.:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5716629

    Please email a complaint to Steve Double, the local Newquay MP who is up in arms about it!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-10-2017 at 7:53 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 2nd Oct 17, 1:13 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    Ok thank you very much i think i have got as much in there without repeating my self, finally when should i submit my appeal i believe i have 8 day from my 29 days left ??

    thanks again

    Nathan
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 2:49 PM
    • 51,537 Posts
    • 65,144 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Whenever you are now ready, under 'OTHER' making sure that the links in 'unclear signs' point #3 are actually showing as picture images (not as links) in your document, to make it illustrated, readable and easy for the Assessor.
    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.

    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 2nd Oct 17, 7:04 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    ok ill do some searches for the tower road carp park notice, thank you again.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 7:55 PM
    • 51,537 Posts
    • 65,144 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just search ONE word: 'Tower'.

    Less is more for decent keyword searches on a bespoke forum, and the words 'car park notice' on this forum gets you precisely nowhere fast! And how about simply scrolling down the thread list for ten pages back or so, I'm sure you will find 3 or 4 Tower Road cases just by looking back.
    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.

    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 4th Oct 17, 10:20 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    last question i'm in the process of sending my appeal but it gives 5 options: which i have narrowed down to 2 to submit.

    Either I was not improperly parked, which covers things like terms and conditions not properly signed,
    or other which states appeals based solely on the following grounds for appeal are less likely to be successful ?

    thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 2:14 PM
    • 51,537 Posts
    • 65,144 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OTHER.

    Pretty sure the NEWBIES thread says so.


    other which states appeals based solely on the following grounds for appeal are less likely to be successful ?
    They lie - this was there on the website before they ever made even a single decision!
    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.

    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 27th Oct 17, 11:53 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    Hi,

    I have received a notice that Parking eye have submitted all of their evidence, on a brief look through they have not at any point identified the driver. They have authority from the landowner. and claims that their signage is adequate. from all of their signage types there is only one type with the full T&C on and of the 27 signs only 13 have the T&C. On this one sign type the entire of the T & C are on approximately 1/8 of the entire sign and the sign is approximately the size of an A4 sheet of paper. i can barley read the T&C on my screen let alone while in a vehicle. do i highlight this as part of them submitting evidence ?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 27th Oct 17, 2:01 PM
    • 866 Posts
    • 976 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, of course you do so. You point out there is no way these signs meet the requirements for clear, legible signs set in the supreme court case PE themselves were involved in.

    Did they talk about the grace periods to enter, and the other to leave?

    Not id'ing the driver is only relevant when they didnt meet POFA - did they? I Cant recall.
    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 30th Oct 17, 8:26 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    I cant recall if they meet POFA, on re reading all of the information over the weekend i have discovered it is not a copy of the contract but a witness statement. that also looks pre printed. are there any standards of witness statements that these need to adhere to ?? looking up on witness statements it talks around a requirement of a full name and address, the statement has to be in their own words, and if they refer to any documents they need to be submitted? they talked about give allowing the minimum grace period of ten minutes, but on further reading their isn't a maximum, so i intent to reiterate this point about the busy period.a big one for me though is they have produced alot of information on the camera system but at no point provided evidence that the camera and payment system are linked or joined in anyway. thank you again for you help i am writing this up this afternoon and feel more confident about this.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 30th Oct 17, 9:46 AM
    • 866 Posts
    • 976 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    well you point out that a WS fails to list all the important caveats and clauses including grace periods ertc. It is simply insufficient to show authority. You can cover this

    Dont" cant recall", YOU HAVE the paperwork.
    • dkmaxx
    • By dkmaxx 30th Oct 17, 10:24 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    dkmaxx
    Your right i do on the Paperwork it state that i am being notified under paragraph 9(2)(b). in terms of the witness statement it is very vague, i'll copy it out as i'm struggling to copy the image.
    1. the site is Tower Road, Newquay
    2. The Landowner is Newquay Golfing club, who has a propriety interest in this site.
    3. The Operator is ParkingEye Ltd
    4. the operator has written authority from the landowner to undertake parking management, control and enforcement at the site, under contract.
    5. The operator had authority to issue a parking charges for the parking event dates 22nd March until 22nd September under this written agreement
    6. the operator had authority by the landowner to issue parking charge notices where vehicles are parked on this site in a manner not permitted under the terms and conditions of parking
    7. The terms and conditions are clearly set out on the signage at the site and where applicable, with and permit or dispensation for use at the site.
    8. The issuing of parking charges is subject to the agreed criteria and exemptions as also clearly set out on signage at the site and where applicable, with any permit or dispensation for use at the site.
    9. The operator is authorised to issue a parking charge notice for breach of any of the terms and conditions referred to above.
    10. The Operator is authorised by the Landowner to pesue the outstanding parking charges in accordance with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice.

    I can confirm that I am authorised to make this statement on behalf of the landowner and that the above information in true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    then signed, name in print, position and dated.
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

1,915Posts Today

7,732Users online

Martin's Twitter