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
    • GeoffBungle
    • By GeoffBungle 12th Oct 17, 4:20 AM
    • 26Posts
    • 18Thanks
    GeoffBungle
    ParkingEye - Selly Oak Pay and Display - POPLA appeal
    • #1
    • 12th Oct 17, 4:20 AM
    ParkingEye - Selly Oak Pay and Display - POPLA appeal 12th Oct 17 at 4:20 AM
    Hello,

    I've received a PCN from ParkingEye for a 19-minute 'stay' in this pay and display car park.

    Sadly, said PCN (£100 or £60 if paid, etc.) was not a golden ticket, as mentioned elsewhere on these forums.

    As the registered keeper, I've appealed to them directly (rejected), and am in the process of drafting a POPLA appeal using the very helpful information on this forum. I'm hoping to get some photos of the signage to go with the rest of the submission.

    I had a couple of questions:

    1. The PCN doesn't explicitly say whether the charge is for non-payment or an overstay. I note the BPA code (B5.1(f)) says that a PCN must state "why the parking ticket was issued".

    The closest it gets to this is in the "Parking charge information" section on the back:

    "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining in the car park for longer than permitted...(etc.)"

    Can this be used within an appeal point?

    2. The circumstances are (sorry, quite long, but I've adopted the "include every detail" method described elsewhere:

    On the day in question, the driver had a poorly 12-month-old baby in the car with them. The driver had left work early to pick up the child after receiving a call from the child’s nursery to inform them the child was unwell. Upon collecting the child, and unable to obtain an appointment with the family's GP at short notice, the driver took the decision to visit the NHS walk-in centre located opposite the car park managed by Parking Eye. The child, who had a temperature and was very congested, had been distressed, restless and crying throughout the drive from the nursery to the walk-in-centre. By the time the driver arrived at the location, they were distracted by the child’s discomfort. The driver entered the car park, entered a space, and spent several minutes soothing the child. Upon realising the car park was a pay and display, the driver found they did not have change. The driver left the car park on foot with the child in an attempt to find a cashpoint, in the hope of withdrawing cash and obtaining change from a nearby shop. This attempt, which ultimately failed, continued for some time before the driver returned to the car and moved to another location.

    I am planning to include the following appeal points:

    1. Insufficient grace period
    2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact liable for the charge.
    3. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    4. Inadequate signage
    5. The charge is a penalty and is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis

    Would appreciate your advice.

    Many thanks.
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Oct 17, 7:26 AM
    • 7,155 Posts
    • 6,202 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:26 AM
    • #2
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:26 AM
    How long were you there?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • GeoffBungle
    • By GeoffBungle 12th Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 18 Thanks
    GeoffBungle
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Oct 17, 2:10 PM
    The driver/car was there for 19 minutes, according to ANPR.
    Last edited by GeoffBungle; 12-10-2017 at 2:16 PM.
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

1,861Posts Today

8,053Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Thank you for covering the story - but also can i say - what a great name for the editor of Money Marketing! https://t.co/UcvQduTeJL

  • Hurrah! The ASA's ruled against 2 fake Facebook ads using my image https://t.co/GvNrqDPOC5 tho Facebook still shows others

  • PS Today's poll is obviously inspired by the real question I was asked and tweeted about last night.

  • Follow Martin