Fistral Beach - Parking Eye

SammyG1965

Have had a PCN from Parking Eye re parking at Fistral Beach. I have had a good look around the forum and found lots of (hopefully) useful advice regarding poor signage, lack of contractual basis etc but I can't find any threads addressing my specific issue:

I entered the Fistral Beach car park, intending to park up, get a takeaway and watch the surfers in the sunset. Unfortunately when I got down to the beach end, of the car park, I realised that the shops and cafe were closed and/or closing, so drove back out again, having been in the car park for less than 5 minutes in total. I then drove into the centre of Newquay, parked and bought a ticket (luckily I still have this ticket). The PCN I have received shows me having been in the car park for 46 minutes, which is clearly incorrect but also the time of entry is shown as 17:32 when I had already parked and bought a ticket, in the centre of Newquay at 17:21.

Does anyone have any advice and/or words that I can use to contest the PCN?

Thanks in advance.

pogofish

Post one of the Newbies Sticky deals with your specifics completely - Start by reading it carefully.

hoohoo

I would just appeal using much the same words, rewording to state 'the driver'. Send a copy of your other ticket.

If your other car park was parkingeye controlled they will be able to verify this and in such cases are usually good at cancelling.

If not, come back here for a popla appeal

SammyG1965

pogofish wrote: »

Post one of the Newbies Sticky deals with your specifics completely - Start by reading it carefully.

Thanks for your reply, I have read the newbies thread (several times!!) before posting but can't see any advice or wording around the issue of incorrect timings. Can you please copy and paste the relevant section?

ezerscrooge

Just shows how inaccurate their ANPR is - which is an appeal point for POPLA (if it gets that far).

Just use the normal standard template appeal - add a line about the timings if you wish, just like you stated in your thread. PE tend to be cancelling the charges on sight of a forum template.

If you have not already identified yourself to PE then, as hoo hoo said, do it as the keeper - you have no obligation to identify the driver. This gives you an extra point for POPLA as the NtK being non-compliant.

pogofish

SammyG1965 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, I have read the newbies thread (several times!!) before posting but can't see any advice or wording around the issue of incorrect timings. Can you please copy and paste the relevant section?

Do not write a letter of appeal about 'what happened' (mitigating circumstances are POINTLESS)! Thanks to da_rule for explaining why this would fail:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65659087#Comment_65659087

So, no story about 'my permit', nothing like 'there was someone sat in the car all the time', nothing about the 'wrong reg number was put in the pay and display machine' and nothing about the stupid flimsy P&D ticket falling off the dashboard!

Now go and read it again - properly!

Coupon-mad

SammyG1965 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply, I have read the newbies thread (several times!!) before posting but can't see any advice or wording around the issue of incorrect timings. Can you please copy and paste the relevant section?

Why would I have covered that? It's irrelevant and the Newbies thread tells you NOT to give mitigating circumstances nor the 'story of what happened'. Please go back, forget the circumstances and just use/adapt the template first appeal (or write a version like it) which is clearly written for ALL cases no matter what the circumstances.


This is not about what happened but if you want to add anything about 'the driver being elsewhere' I do hope you have realised NOT to say 'I'?!.

The_Deep

Why would I have covered that? It's irrelevant ...

Once again CM you are failing to see the bigger picture. What is relevant is that the OP was in the car park for 4-5 minutes but the ANPR system recorded a much longer time and charged them accordingly. This surely must be actionable by Weights and Measures.

It is certainly NOT mitigation. The circumstances in this instance are entirely relevant and overshadow all points of law raised in an appeal.

I would therefore suggest that, if PE refuse to accept the truth as stated by the OP, he/she allows them, if they are daft enough, to take him to court and deal with the consequences, which may be having to explain themselves to Trading Standards.

bazster

TD is correct, there is a growing tendency to conflate "what PoPLA will refuse" with "mitigation". The fact that PoPLA is stupid and/or corrupt enough to ignore certain circumstances does not in and of itself make those circumstances "mitigation". Duff camera timings are not mitigation, they are a fact which would make the claim entirely groundless, if not fraudulent. PoPLA might refuse to accept this, but that says more about PoPLA than it does about the OP's case.

Coupon-mad

I agree in fact - I did add that the person may want to add that 'the driver went elsewhere' and so it was 2 visits. But there's no way I am covering that sort of possibility in the Newbies thread. Too much information to fit in already!