Parking Eye fine at Membury services, M4

Absolutely_Fuming

I emailed my soft appeal to PE last night and a hard copy is ready to be posted to them by snail mail for which I will get proof of posting from the post office. I'll be back on here for further advice once I have my POPLA code from them and in the meantime I'll be working on my draft POPLA appeal. Many thanks to all of you for your help in this so far, I'm very grateful.

Absolutely_Fuming

I wasn't expecting to have to be back on here so soon having just submitted my soft appeal to PE but today I received a reply from my letter of complaint to Welcome Break. I have scanned it and converted it to editable text and you can read it below. I would be interested to hear what you all think of this reply and how I can answer some of the assertions they make, particularly about the signage, land ownership and contract etc.


Dear xxxxxxx,

Thank you for your letter to Mr McKie regarding a parking charge at Membury.

Mr McKie has passed on your letter tothe Welcome Break parking team for us to respond on his behalf.

Parking Eye are part of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme, therefore all signage in place must conform to regulations, including height and size. The signs are of a similar height to other road signs which are legible from any standard motor vehicle. Parking Eye asserts that if a motorist is of adequate sight to qualify to drive a motor vehicle then they should be able to read the essential terms and conditions of the signage whilst driving. All non-essential text is in a smaller font at the bottom of the sign, which can be read once the motorist has parked. Several cases have been heard within courts where the matter of signage has been disputed. In Combined Parking Solutions v Rees (2007) District Judge Dyte asked,

"Did the claimant make reasonable efforts to bring these signs to the attention of any drivers entering the car park? I have no doubt at all that they did in this case... You ought to have been aware that it was likely that there would be parking restrictions. It is a fact of 21st century life. There are more and more parking restrictions throughout towns and throughout industrial estates. I am not satisfied that the claimant should have done more to direct your attention to the parking restrictions."

This case suggests there is also aresponsibility placed upon the motorist to make efforts to familiarise themselves with any potential parking restrictions. By having clear and ample signage located within the car park, it is not believed that there could reasonably be more done to bring the signage to the your attention, and can confirm that all signage is in line with British Parking Association regulations. Signage can be located at the entrance to the car park to initially highlight that there are terms and conditions to park on site, there is other signage located all across the car park that can be further investigated once parked. A fair and reasonable grace period is in operation on our sites to give motorists time to decide whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of the car park and act accordingly. This therefore means that if you enter the site where an image is taken by the cameras, you are provided with a reasonable time to decide if you wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of the car park. If you do not wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of the car park, you can leave and no charge would be levied.

As previously stated, a free 2 hour period is provided to park and after this time, a tariff applies. This means that if a motorist wishes to take a break, they have ample time to do so for free and if extra time is needed, the tariff applies. This is in place across all of our sites and also is in place across many other motorway service providers. You have also been advised that if you disagree with the charge, you can write to Parking Eye's appeals team directly. Parking Eye runs an extensive appeals service, with each appeal being looked at on a case by case basis. If Parking Eye does reject an appeal, you would be provided with a further opportunity to appeal to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals Service).

There is strong commercial justification by having Parking Eye in operation within the site. Private management of car parks is commercially necessary for landholders such as ourselves. The contracts, and its clauses, are necessary to prevent abuse of private land. This is commercially necessary as the landholder needs to manage their land in order to ensure that their business can run successfully. Therefore, as outlined to yourself, we ask that you direct all your further queries to Parking Eye directly. Details of how to contact them can be found on the letters that have been sent to yourself.

Welcome Break can confirm that Parking Eye have full authority to act as an agent on behalf of ourselves as the land holder to conduct car park management services on our sites, this includes making contracts in their own name through the signage located on our sites. Unfortunately at this point, we would not be able to offer any further comment on this matter and would ask that you direct and points that you wish to raise with ParkingEye directly.

Kind Regards

The Parking Team Welcome Break

Coupon-mad

We've seen similar responses from that Office recently, since we noticed that PE had 'got at' Rod McKie. That reads as if it was written by ParkingEye so I suspect the 'Welcome Break Parking Team' are indeed just PE replying to you there. PE have probably told Mr McKie to pass any complaints to them to 'handle'. Words like 'commercial justification' and 'landholder' give the game away (PE must think we were born yesterday if they think we won't spot their words)!

It's as I said in the 'Successful Complaints' sticky thread in post #3. Don't complain to the CEO any more, instead direct a complaint to WB at the actual site, get hold of the Regional Manager or ring the Head Office number and complain without mentioning this exchange of drivel so far. Treat it as a new complaint and bite your lip about this worthless letter exchange.

Absolutely_Fuming

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We've seen similar responses from that Office recently, since we noticed that PE had 'got at' Rod McKie. That reads as if it was written by ParkingEye so I suspect the 'Welcome Break Parking Team' are indeed just PE replying to you there. PE have probably told Mr McKie to pass any complaints to them to 'handle'. Words like 'commercial justification' and 'landholder' give the game away (PE must think we were born yesterday if they think we won't spot their words)!

It's as I said in the 'Successful Complaints' sticky thread in post #3. Don't complain to the CEO any more, instead direct a complaint to WB at the actual site, get hold of the Regional Manager or ring the Head Office number and complain without mentioning this exchange of drivel so far. Treat it as a new complaint and bite your lip about this worthless letter exchange.

I sent copies of my complaint (#7) to Welcome Break to the CEO Rod McKie and the manager of Membury Services at the same time but this reply (#33) was actually sent from Membury Services, not WB HQ. A couple of days later I had another letter from Membury Services, this time signed by the actual manager who I had originally written to, but this was addressing my complaint about the state of the toilets rather than the parking. The tone it was written in was completely different to that of #33, however, and so I absolutely agree with you that PE will have provided WB with a script to be used in the event of any complaints about the parking! Is there any point writing back to Regional Manager again since 'Membury' has already written to me twice?

I hope you got those pictures OK by the way. They do look a bit different to others I've seen so I hope they're not something new!

Coupon-mad

I would try phoning the Membury Manager perhaps, to thank them for their personal reply about the state of the toilets but to say how disappointed you were to be fobbed off with a reply clearly written by ParkingEye (DEFINITELY) which seems to be a terrible example of the tail wagging the dog.

I did see the pics of the signs you pm'd to me and would say there's no way they are lit, and that there appear to be parts of the car park where you could park and walk into the premises without seeing a sign. You could state that to the Membury Services Manager, why are the signs not lit and why don't they comply with the Traffic Signs manual as you believe the Dept for Transport require, for all traffic signs in Motorway Service Areas.

If it were me I'd be polite but assertive, standing up when making the phone call! And leaving some nice pauses of silence after you've made each point, so he/she feels they have to fill the silence...and I would stay on the phone reiterating your points and avoid the usual polite 'alright then' when he responds to each point with some old rubbish. I would stay on the phone until he agrees to cancel it as a 'one off in this instance' (push for it if he/she doesn't offer) as it was dark and the signs were unlit, and no loss was suffered at all.

At the very least, ask him to email you with an update if he is willing to 'try to cancel it' since a paper trail of your efforts would be useful for you to have as written evidence.

ampersand

Wish I could double-thank this reply,c-m.
I won't say 'good luck',AF, as this is not a 'luck' resolution. All will be well.
You[and I]are working hard for the forces of law and order.
About to paste em for WB 'Regional Manager' for once-over...then to Church for Festival of 9 Lessons and Carols, much better for me.

Coupon-mad

I was about to post a link here to your thread anyway, ampersand:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4834668

You can both fight this together and see who gets theirs cancelled first.

ampersand

Just a note, AF - have you seen some names/no.s I gave? -
'For anyone who wants to press on any Shell-related landholder issue where Welcome Break are the Landlords, the Shell Retail Property Co. is on 0800 731 8888.
They will refer you to CB Richard Ellis Ltd 02071823828,who handle all lease agreements for Shell Retail Property Co.
Just another pebble for the munitions pot.'
##########
http://investing.businessweek.com/re...sonId=33430849

Phoned this no. to ask who owns land:
01908 299 700,
from here:
http://www.catererandhotelkeeper.co.uk/Operator/33918

Can't get anywhere with this, but unwelcomebreak's dealings with arkingpie have this lady as contact:
pat.burrows@welcomebreak.co.uk.
######
For the techies among you - Is there any mileage in appropriating this for anti-pcn purposes?
http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook...green-services'

Absolutely_Fuming

Thanks Coupon-mad and ampersand for your advice and links. I'll follow them up in due course but I will be forgetting about PE for the next few days while I enjoy Christmas.

Coupon-mad, I have already tried phoning the manager of Membury on a couple of occasions but each time I was told that they couldn't put me through to him as "he doesn't have a direct line, so he'll have to phone you back instead." I presume that's just a load of rubbish as I can't believe that it's physically impossible for someone from the outside to phone a WB employee at their place of work. Needless to say he never did phone me back. Thank you for your assertiveness tips though, I'm sure I will find them very useful before this nonsense is finally resolved!

Coupon-mad

Ring the WB Head Office number in post #3 of the 'Successful Complaints' sticky thread. Don't refer to your previous complaint, just start afresh.