Parking Fine from Parking Eye at Home Bargains

Tinkerbell60

I have recently received a letter in the post form Parking Eye saying that I have been fined £80 (£50 if paid within 28 days) because I parked in a retail park next to Home Bargains. They state the times I was there (from 18.45 to 21.50) just over 3 hours. There is pictures of my car. It is pitch black so all you can make out on the picture is my reg plate and headlines from when I entered into the car park and when I left.

The reason why I was parked there wasnt to shop but was to walk to the fireworks display nearby. I was under the assumuption the shops were closed at that time and it was madness with traffic at this time with others trying to park to attend the display also so if Ive been sent this fine hundreds of others I imagine will be in the same boat.

It said on the letter that 0 hours and 0 minutes were allowed. Which appears to be strange, as surely there must be a set period of time for shoppers to park.

Should I go to their website and appeal against this letter?

Thank you

bod1467

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4823186

That's another Home Bargains thread. Same advice probably applies, and see the post referenced in my signature.

Coupon-mad

Should I go to their website and appeal against this letter?

Yep, but only as the registered keeper (as per the sticky thread referred to in bod1467's signature).

Tinkerbell60

Thank you both for your replies.

I understand I should only say Im the RK and not the driver but in terms of the basis of my appeal should I just say inform that I didnt see the signs and I thought that the stores were closed in the retail park or would parking eye say thats your own fault so tough! In addition, why on earth would they say 0 hours and 0 minutes are alloweds. That means that customers of that retail park have to pay to go to the shops? That appears strange to me. I have read other threads on here and others at least indicate a time period for which they were over their time allowance by.

Thanks

bod1467

No. The driver didn't see the signs and the driver thought the stores were closed, etc.

Guys_Dad

Tinkerbell60 wrote: »

Thank you both for your replies.

I understand I should only say Im the RK and not the driver but in terms of the basis of my appeal should I just say inform that I didnt see the signs and I thought that the stores were closed in the retail park or would parking eye say thats your own fault so tough! In addition, why on earth would they say 0 hours and 0 minutes are alloweds. That means that customers of that retail park have to pay to go to the shops? That appears strange to me. I have read other threads on here and others at least indicate a time period for which they were over their time allowance by.

Thanks

The reason why it is zero is almost certainly because you were not supposed to be there and no hourly charge is applicable as you were, technically, trespassing.

Umkomaas

The 0 hours, 0 minutes are usually quoted where there is an in-store touchscreen via which you are required to input your VRM, and haven't done so. Entirely consistent with the circumstances you describe.

Tinkerbell60

Ive never seen one of them before. The shop actually shut 15 minutes after I parked.

ezerscrooge

I'm new to these forums myself, but the mitigating circumstances bit won't work with these people.

You could ask for the ticket to be cancelled by Home Bargains - first the store a loyal customer, then Head Office.

If that doesn't work then fight them.

And I'm sure somewhere on these threads is a reference to PE stating that their GPEoL is £53 (though it must be site specific), therefore your charge could be considered excessive and punitive.

What were the lighting levels in the car park (you say pitch black so can I assume their was no lighting at all)? if it was dark and there was no lighting then it could be stated that the signs were not clearly visible (but that would mean admitting being the driver). There is a thread on here that I came across where an appeal was allowed becasue whilst the signs are clearly visible in the daylight - they were not when it was dark. This is where the PPC lost - they could not claim the signs were visible as per the BPA code and their defence only refered to signs in daylight. Search for Fistral in the POPLA decisions thread.

Essentially "The usual method by which an operator takes
‘reasonable steps’ is by displaying clear signs around the site advertising the terms of parking.

Once an appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear.

The operator has produced a number of photographs which show the parking signage erected at the xxxxx car park. These photographs were taken during the day time. However, there is no dispute between the parties that it was dark when the appellant entered the car park. The operator has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the terms of parking were clearly displayed at night time.

Consequently, I must find that the operator has failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to bring the terms of parking to the attention on the appellant."