Parking Eye PCN - Closed Retail Park

danny27

Thanks again for quick reply, just a quick question would i need to put my address on the appeal and hows best to end it just print name and sign above?

Guys_Dad

No reason not to put address - they know it already. Print name, don't sign.

danny27

I'm gonna send my appeal tomorrow to parking eye how it best to send it online or through post? also as if i send it through post is it best to send recorded? it goes to a PO Box so would this even be an option as no one will be at the PO Box to sign for it?

Umkomaas

Do both - on line and by snail mail with a free proof of posting from your PO. No need to send 'Signed For'.

danny27

Sent appeal off just waiting game now.

I visited the car park and on the signs in the car park it states -

Parking Eye Ltd is solely engaged to provide a traffic space maximization scheme. We are not responsible for the car park surface, other motor vehicles, damage or loss to or from vehicles or users safety. The parking regulations for this car park apply all year round 24 hours a day, all year round, irrespective of the site opening hours. Parking is at the absolute discretion of the site. By Parking within the car park motorists agree to comply with the car park regulations. Should a motorist fail to comply with he car park, the motorist accepts they are liable to pay a parking charge and that their name and address will be requested from the DVLA.

my question is is that sufficient enough to comply with section 30.1 of the BPA code that states 'Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera technology may be used for parking control and enforcement. Operators using ANPR must do so in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Signs at the entrance must tell drivers that you are using this technology. Your signs must make it clear what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.'

the only mention of ANPR on the sign is the camera logo that says 'car park monitored by ANPR systems'

also is there anteing else which might be appeal able on the sign?

Thanks

Umkomaas

danny27 wrote: »

Sent appeal off just waiting game now.

I visited the car park and on the signs in the car park it states -

Parking Eye Ltd is solely engaged to provide a traffic space maximization scheme. We are not responsible for the car park surface, other motor vehicles, damage or loss to or from vehicles or users safety. The parking regulations for this car park apply all year round 24 hours a day, all year round, irrespective of the site opening hours. Parking is at the absolute discretion of the site. By Parking within the car park motorists agree to comply with the car park regulations. Should a motorist fail to comply with he car park, the motorist accepts they are liable to pay a parking charge and that their name and address will be requested from the DVLA.

my question is is that sufficient enough to comply with section 30.1 of the BPA code that states 'Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera technology may be used for parking control and enforcement. Operators using ANPR must do so in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Signs at the entrance must tell drivers that you are using this technology. Your signs must make it clear what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.'

the only mention of ANPR on the sign is the camera logo that says 'car park monitored by ANPR systems'

also is there anteing else which might be appeal able on the sign?

Thanks

That's the usual 'guff' in the tiniest print at the foot of PE signage. The bit about ANPR is probably not compliant with BPA CoP, but it's a pretty weak point in the context of robust appeals - there's plenty more 'wrong', so I wouldn't get too hung up on splitting hairs over this particular issue. But if you want to be anal about it, check it against the CoP - section 18 and Annex B (that's all we have to go on), here:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/609_AOS_CoP_June_2013_update.pdf

danny27

any idea on how long it usually takes parking eye to respond to appeals, i sent by post and online about 10 days ago and had no reply or acknowledgement.

bod1467

I think they need to acknowledge the appeal within 14 days and respond to it within 35 days.

4consumerrights

Parking Eye Ltd is solely engaged to provide a traffic space maximization scheme. We are not responsible for the car park surface, other motor vehicles, damage or loss to or from vehicles or users safety. The parking regulations for this car park apply all year round 24 hours a day, all year round, irrespective of the site opening hours. Parking is at the absolute discretion of the site. By Parking within the car park motorists agree to comply with the car park regulations. Should a motorist fail to comply with he car park, the motorist accepts they are liable to pay a parking charge and that their name and address will be requested from the DVLA.

If it was dark when the driver entered the car park and there was no illumination on the signs - then No contract can be formed between driver and Parking Eye.

Go back to the car park in the dark and try and take some photographs of the entrance. Parking Eye's car park at Fistral beach and Tower Road (if my memory is correct also entraps motorists with badly lit entrances)

Signs at the entrance must tell drivers that you are using this technology. Your signs must make it clear what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.'

- Yep you're right there should be adequate signage to inform drivers when sites have CCTV/ANPR coverage.

The ICO guidance document for business is here if you are interested.

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/topic_guides/cctv

****************

In any case as stated above by Guys Dad and Umkomaas POPLA wins on GPEOL . - Interesting to see how Parking Eye can justify this in this case by retail outlet/principal suffered no financial loss due to shops being closed. Parking Eye are supposed to manage car parks for their clients to encourage and quick turnover of vehicles and free up car parking spaces according to their website:

http://www.parkingeye.co.uk/ParkingChargeFAQ

danny27

Right so today i received my appeal back as unsuccessful big surprise surprise, they included a lot of mumble jumble saying pre-estimate of loss is not a ground you can appeal and is a method not adopted by judges when deciding whether or not it is a penalty or not, and put some examples of court cases etc.

Is the just a load of crap they put to basically try scare people? as in POPLA appeal decisions i have noticed this wins quite regular.