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
    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 20th Sep 17, 11:48 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 7Thanks
    AnnieLong
    ParkingEye Poplar Appeal - Pls Help
    • #1
    • 20th Sep 17, 11:48 PM
    ParkingEye Poplar Appeal - Pls Help 20th Sep 17 at 11:48 PM
    Thank you for all who helped people out here. I read through lots posts and now finally would like someone to read my appeal before submit.

    Some info:
    - biggest mistake: may have mentioned I was the driver in the first appeal to PE. what can I do to help on this pls?
    - overstayed 21mins. travel with 2 young children; lost car key before buy tickets, found it in car boot and 20 mins past before purchase ticket; paid for 3 hrs back to car 20mins earlier. but left 1 mins late as little one fell over on way back. so total 3 hrs 21 mins
    - PCN or rejection of appeal letter didn't mention why PCN at all. thought they think I didn't pay - so first appeal.
    - just checked online evidence again they said insufficient payment.

    Please kindly read my appeal and give some advise before submit tomorrow. Many thanks.

    - Mainly focus on grace period. but should I still keep the Item 4? The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge. Thanks.
    ------------------------
    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I am writing to challenge a parking charge notice received for parking at the Tower Road, Newquay car park on xx/08/2017. This car park is run by ParkingEye Ltd.

    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
    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.


    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.

    The vehicle first entered the car park at 11:39:54 and left at 15:01:42.
    Ticket was purchased till 3pm. Travel group including 2 children, one is four-year old with pushchair and one ten-year old. All members came back to car park 20 minutes before the parking period ended.

    Car circled 2 rounds to find a suitable place to park. 2 accidents happened within the parking period. First after got children out of the car and ready to purchase ticket, car key was missing. All members involved tried to find it and eventually it was found in the carboot. On the way back to the car park, 4 year old girl fell over and broke her knee – she needed to be treated while at the same time, on that extremely hot day, steering wheel needed time to cool down.

    The Parking Charge Notice appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of 21 minutes, despite the fact that all parties returned to the car park 20 minutes before the parking contract ended. This is not an overstay 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.”’

    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.”

    It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye has failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark (as determined by the ANPR cameras) exceeded the paid period by 21 minutes. This time period includes 20 minutes prior to purchasing the ticket, which included 2 round of driving around in the car park to find a suitable place to park, and mainly accident 1 of missing car key, and paying at the machine. The time period also includes accident 2 of broken-knee treatment of just 1 minute spent following the expiration of the ticket, time in which the vehicle had left the parking bay and was waiting to exit the car park.

    Following the BPA’s Professional Development & Standards Board of 30th July 2015, a recommendation was made to change clause 13.4 of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice to read:
    Reword Clause 13.4 to ‘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 11 minutes’.
    Furthermore, it was not unreasonable to expect that 10 minutes between when the vehicle entered the car park and when the ticket was purchased to be counted as a grace period for parking, reading terms and conditions, taking caring of young children and waiting in the queue to purchase the ticket. Finally, the 1 minutes following the expiration of the parking period is well within any reasonable expectation of a grace period.

    This case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this parking operator, who appear to be attempting to get more and more 10/11 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

    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.


    4. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact
    liable for the charge.

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever.
    A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the
    driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I
    can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to
    pay, not by POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout
    (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving,
    and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this
    case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place
    on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot – they will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.

    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert
    barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-

    Understanding keeper liability

    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain
    conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges
    from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time.

    Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK in 6061796103 v ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."


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

    Yours faithfully,
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 17, 1:36 AM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,143 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 21st Sep 17, 1:36 AM
    • #2
    • 21st Sep 17, 1:36 AM
    should I still keep the Item 4? The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    Not if you've said you were driving, no you can't use that point.
    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.

    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 21st Sep 17, 9:36 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    • #3
    • 21st Sep 17, 9:36 AM
    • #3
    • 21st Sep 17, 9:36 AM
    Thank you very much Coupon-mad! So I will delete the whole Item 4.

    Should I tell my circumstance in Item 1, will that help at all? Do you feel that this case has enough points to appeal, the chance of win at all please? I know it's hard to say but I just used personal points in Grace Peirod item and none in others, will that be alright please? Can I just submit like that with 3 items (delete item 4). Many thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 17, 11:46 AM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,143 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 21st Sep 17, 11:46 AM
    • #4
    • 21st Sep 17, 11:46 AM
    Yes you can submit it like that.

    And the grace period point should have stuff about why you were slightly held up due to losing your car key before buying tickets and pointing out that you drove out within the grace period at the end. I'm not sure POPLA will buy it for 21 minutes so I think grace period won't be the winning point.

    Your chances probably focus on the landowner authority so let's hope PE don't supply it, or that they supply a redacted version that you can criticise in your final comments.
    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.

    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 21st Sep 17, 12:02 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    • #5
    • 21st Sep 17, 12:02 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Sep 17, 12:02 PM
    Thank you so much for your prompt reply Coupon-mad, really appreciate your time and effort to read it and help. Wonderful to know there are people like you - made the world a warm place Thanks.

    I will edit and complete to submit it. Will come back to update. Once again great appreciation!

    All the best!
    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 28th Sep 17, 2:31 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    • #6
    • 28th Sep 17, 2:31 PM
    • #6
    • 28th Sep 17, 2:31 PM
    Popla Appeal Update - ParkingEye submitted documents, need my comments. -Please help.

    Don't want to get it wrong this time, so please help.

    They provided all general info and correspondence, including my original appeal to them -- I haven't found this site yet at that time so I did wrong...

    My case summery: overstayed for 21mins. Due to lost car key in carboot so looking for it all the time then bought ticket. left car park 11mins earlier than the parking time ends. (spend 30mins looking for and trying to get the keys!! but left earlier than time purchased)

    However I mistake the time I paid for. In first Appeal to them I thought I paid for 4 hours but actually it was 3 hrs for £4. I did leave earlier so just mixed up the 3 hrs and £4. Who can remember after a month's holiday!

    What should I comment on their evidence please?
    I thought it's the time I paid for and actually left early than it. The main argument is that I did spend 30mins trying to looking for my keys and trying to get it while all the other doors locked including the carboot - it cannot be open. with suitcases in there I couldn't find and get the key.

    What will be the best way to appeal for this: they didn't show any sign that you have to pay the moment you entered the car park, while if I know I would have done. I thought pay & display is before you leave the car park you buy your ticket. As I did.

    I guess the worst case is to pay them £100 but I do think it's unfair. So please help. Many thanks in advance.
    • Marko Hates PPCs
    • By Marko Hates PPCs 28th Sep 17, 2:47 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Marko Hates PPCs
    • #7
    • 28th Sep 17, 2:47 PM
    • #7
    • 28th Sep 17, 2:47 PM
    Hello Annie

    I very much doubt it will get to the 100 £ forced payment given this is a pay and display car park if I have read you correctly.

    Have a look for Parking Eye vs Cargius, 25 November 2014.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 28th Sep 17, 3:16 PM
    • 579 Posts
    • 701 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #8
    • 28th Sep 17, 3:16 PM
    • #8
    • 28th Sep 17, 3:16 PM
    Noone uses Cargius. Mostly undermined by Beavis

    Is there claim that the time shown on the ticket is when you have to have left the site?

    If so it is trite law that, in a P&D carpark, the time on the ticket is the PARKING limit, not the time to have left the site.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Sep 17, 6:39 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,143 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 28th Sep 17, 6:39 PM
    • #9
    • 28th Sep 17, 6:39 PM
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73185008#post73185008

    As above.
    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.

    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 28th Sep 17, 9:04 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    Thank you Marko for your kind input!!

    Thank you nosferatu1001, as in my case I have left the car park before end of the time. It's before I purchase the ticket I spend about 30mins to get children ready - mostly lost my key so can't lock the car to go buy ticket.

    Thank you Coupon-mad. As the evidence did show - ticket purchase from 12:12 to 15: 12. purchase for 3hrs. I left 15.01.
    The pics show I enter the car park at 11:39 and left 15.01. So 3hr 21 mins. I cannot see any sign demands that the Pay & Display ticket is paying form the camera get you enter the car park. I thought it's pay and display for the time you left car to come back and leave. I specially left 20/30mins early to come back. All signs on site said - you have to buy ticket before you leave the car .

    Shall I/ Can I use this as main argument or should I go through all other points as you mentioned in the above link post please? Will there be a case as I did actually left earlier than time paid till. Many thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Sep 17, 11:40 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,143 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    signs on site said - you have to buy ticket before you leave the car.
    I would point this out and say the driver did comply with the terms as set out, plus look for anything to say about the landowner contract/witness statement, dates, signatories. And anything you notice about their signage photos (old dates, no dates)?

    Comments should be fairly short, but try to nail the failures in their evidence.
    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.

    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Sep 17, 9:01 AM
    • 579 Posts
    • 701 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You can state that you left before the time on the ticket, and if the PPC wishes to use another time as the time the vehicle must have left site by, this must be brought to the drivers attention clearly and unambiguously, as it goes against the normal practice in a pay and display car park. Any ambiguity in terms - and I would go further and state the ticket is the ONLY certain term available to show by when the parking period ends - MUST be interpreted in the consumers favour (CRA2015) and there is no doubt here that the consumers favour is to use the time on the ticket. The appeal cannot be denied on this basis, as this goes against the wishes of parliament as expressed in the CRA 2015 (give the ref to ths requirement to rule in consumers favour) and is not up for interpretation by any non judicial body.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 29th Sep 17, 9:39 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 1,671 Thanks
    Castle
    The Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms:-
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted
    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 29th Sep 17, 10:09 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    Thank you Coupon-mad, that's very good point I will include in the comments. And also for the tips about being short.

    Thank you nosferatu1001, if you don't mind I may quote some of your wordings

    Thank you Castle, I am reading the Consumer Rights now and may quote some of them, already found some that suit.

    Thank you very much for your kind reply. Now I have some more ideas about what to comment and how. Really appreciate!!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Sep 17, 10:37 AM
    • 579 Posts
    • 701 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    reword as I may have the wrong pronouns in there - hard to write for someone else, on a forum, you slip into using "you" when you mean "i", and so on
    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 29th Sep 17, 1:36 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    I will, thank you
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Sep 17, 8:22 PM
    • 3,967 Posts
    • 2,219 Thanks
    KeithP
    Section 69 of The Consumer Rights Act says:
    69 Contract terms that may have different meanings

    (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.
    .
    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 29th Sep 17, 10:04 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    Great point KeithP, thank you so much for your input
    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 4th Oct 17, 12:50 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    Dear All, before I submit the final comments to Parking Eye Evidence, could someone please help to check? I have to submit by today but would like a second pair of eyes. Many thanks.
    ----------------------------
    Comments to Evidence:
    A. Evidence showed no overstay as to ticket
    B. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    C. Inadequate signage, all out of date photos.

    A.
    1. Evidence G: (Page 51/51) – Ticket
    “System generated print out” showed clearly -
    Ticket purchase Time: 12.12-15.12 Car left site by 15.01 as in Evidence D (page 14/51). More time was purchased.

    2. Evidence B: (Page 6/51) Grace Period
    “ParkingEye operates a grace period” “ a minimum of 10 minutes or more ” As travel group including 2 young children it took longer than normal single person; with car key went missing caused further delay to purchase ticket as cannot secure the car. Once key was found car was secured - ticket was purchased straight away at 12.12 -15.12.
    3. Evidence F (Page 31/51): Signage - How to Pay
    “At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park”
    All Signage said: pay before you leave
    The driver did comply with all the terms as set out. Left site (15.01) 11 minutes earlier.

    If the PPC wishes to use another time as the time the vehicle must have left site by, this must be brought to the drivers attention CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY, as it goes against the normal practice in a pay and display car park.
    The ticket is the ONLY certain term available to show by when the parking period ends. Any ambiguity in terms MUST be interpreted in the consumers favour (CRA2015) and there is no doubt here that the consumer’s favour is to use the time on the ticket.

    Section 69 of The Consumer Rights Act:
    69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
    (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

    B. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice- an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. Failed to provide evidence.

    C. Inadequate signage, all out of date photos (2013, 2015 or latest 2017 March )and mis-presented dates in pics and notes. In evidence F (page 24/51 – 49/51)
    No real evidence onsite on event date Aug 04, 2017. Those signage may well be demanded or not shown at all. There are no real evidence onsite on event date.

    Original PCN letter (page 8/51) didn’t state the Reason at all. So 1st appeal was made as non-payment. After 3 weeks cannot recall - mixed the £4 for 3 hours to 4 hours.
    • AnnieLong
    • By AnnieLong 19th Oct 17, 5:22 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AnnieLong
    Appeal Successful - Thank you for everyone helped Especially Cuoponmad
    Dear All,

    Good news not only to me but to a lot others who are experiencing the same problem/frustration with ParkingEye PCN Tower Road.

    Thank you for everyone who has contributed to this success, Coupon-mad specially gave out a lot valuable tips and led me the way through all these. Thank you!

    Please kindly find the Popla Decision as below, for everyone who is considering appeal for reference. The most important is the Written Contract & Witness of the owner and PE. Hope you will be successful as well! Thank you for this site and everyone who spend time answering other people's questions. You all made our life much easier.

    ================================================== =================

    Decision: Successful
    Assessor: xxx
    Assessor summary of operator case
    The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the appellant’s vehicle was on site for longer than the time paid for.

    Assessor summary of your case
    The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. These are as follows: • The appellant says that they believe that the operator has not applied a sufficient grace period. They say that the vehicle circled the car park twice to find a space and two accidents happened during the time it was parked. When the vehicle arrived, the car key was lost, and this took some time to find. The appellant says that on the way back to the vehicle, one of the children fell and broke their knee, which needed treatment at the site. • They say that they put the parking operator to strict proof that they have the authority to operate on site. • The appellant says that the signs in the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the charge amount. The appellant has provided a copy of the Notice to Keeper they received from the parking operator.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision
    I acknowledge the reason the operator has issued the PCN. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that it has issued the PCN correctly. The operator has issued the PCN as the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site for longer than the time paid for. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal. However, my report will focus on the ground that the appellant says they put the parking operator to strict proof that they have the authority to operate on site. The British Parking Association Code of Practice states in section 7.1,“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. The operator has not provided either a copy of the contract between itself and the landowner, or a witness statement to confirm that they have the authority to issue PCNs on site. As I am unable to determine that the operator has the authority to issue PCNs on site, I can only conclude, in this case, that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider any other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant.

    ======================================
    Thank you Popla as well!! xxx
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

2,334Posts Today

7,288Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin