ParkingEye Drive in/out fine?

susi

Hi, I have read the threads on the ANPR system but a little unsure what to appeal on. My son went to collect his disabled grandad from the car park, within the car park there is a jacket potato stand, he actually asked the car park attendant if he could get food without a ticket and he was told yes. He has had a parking charge notice because he spent 20 mins in the car park (next to the food stand with grandad in the car). He has appealed but it has been rejected. From what Ive read the next step is POPLA. I have read up and it basically says there is now way of telling if these times were indeed one drive through or more. Do you think he stands a chance with his original reason (which is true the car park attendant said it was ok) bit confused, dont want to advise him then him fail and the full amount has to be paid rather than the discounted fine? Appeal or pay?????

The_Slithy_Tove

No, don't base the POPLA appeal on what happened, i.e. mitigating circumstances. It will surely fail. Use the standard POPLA appeal points which you can find in abundance by checking out the NEWBIES thread at the top of this forum.

susi

Thank you, can I ask is this the most up to date template and is this the one he should use for this particular appeal? I have just copied and pasted it from the forum.

Re: ParkingEye PCN, reference code xxxxxxxxxx
POPLA Code:

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye. I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
ParkingEye's evidence shows no parking time, merely photos of a car driving in and out which does not discount the possibility of a double visit that evening. It is unreasonable for this operator to record the start of 'parking time' as the moment of arrival in moving traffic if they in fact offer a pay and display system which the driver can only access after parking and which is when the clock in fact starts. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all and has not been shown to be synchronised to the pay and display machine clock nor even to relate to the same parking event that evening.

As keeper I cannot discount that this may have been a double visit (possibly even with two drivers since the car has more than one family member who drives it). Or the driver may have driven in, realised it was pay and display then driven out to get change before returning (and of course the ANPR cameras show only the first and last visits). The BPA even mention this as an inherent problem with ANPR on their website;
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/How-does-ANPR-work
The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:
a) Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.
b) Some ‘drive in/drive out’ motorists that have activated the system receive a charge certificate even though they have not parked or taken a ticket. Reputable operators tend not to uphold charge certificates issued in this manner...'

Even if an Operator shows a list with 'no record' of that car registration in between the times, this would not discount the 'double visit' possibility as it is well known that car registrations are completely missed when a vehicle is followed closely by a higher vehicle, or by a temporary interruption in the camera recording. Or even an item temporarily obscuring the camera from picking up one car registration, such as a passing bird or wind-blown carrier bag or leaves appearing in front of the camera, even for moments, would stop a record appearing of a car leaving in between the stated times. I put the Operator to strict proof to the contrary. All footage would have to be checked and this Operator will be unable to refute the double visit possibility since they don't bother to record continuous footage. If I am wrong then they must show POPLA a complete 'video' that they allege shows no more entries or exits that day by this car.

Further, this Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice and to have signs stating how the data will be stored and used. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and how the data will be used and stored. . I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code in terms of ANPR logs and maintenance and I put this Operator to strict proof of full ANPR compliance.

In addition I question the entire reliability of the system. I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss recently in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from ParkingEye was fundamentally flawed because the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require ParkingEye to show evidence to rebut the following assertion. I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. As their whole charge rests upon two timed photos, I put ParkingEye to strict proof to refute all of my points about their flawed ANPR records.

This concludes my POPLA appeal.

Yours faithfully,




Mr xxxxxxxxxxx {registered keeper's name...}

Coupon-mad

What?

That's not one of the ParkingEye POPLA examples linked in the Newbies thread - doesn't look recent at all, only talks about ANPR and nothing else - and there's NOTHING about 'no GPEOL' there (don't ask).

Use the Forum Jump to hop to page one and read the Newbies thread post #3 and click on 'How to win at POPLA' and find the most similar PE example and adapt it. That's what sticky threads are stuck at the top of any forum for! Sorry, I won't link the sticky thread, it's at the top. Use the Forum Jump to hop around the forum better.

susi

I apologise if I have managed to get the incorrect information Im not exactly familiar with forum terminology. I do know what a sticky is but have no idea how to use the forum jump after following several links I finally ended up with the above which I thought was correct but obviously not. I will try again

SevenTowers

susi wrote: »

I apologise if I have managed to get the incorrect information Im not exactly familiar with forum terminology. I do know what a sticky is but have no idea how to use the forum jump after following several links I finally ended up with the above which I thought was correct but obviously not. I will try again

The sticky threads are the ones that "stick" permanently to the top of the forum, the newbies thread is the second one on the main private parking forum

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

Bookmark it!

Coupon-mad

have no idea how to use the forum jump

Look top right or bottom right on this page. It says 'FORUM JUMP'... Click 'GO' (what else is there?). It's there to make it easier for newbies!

Bobbydazzler

susi wrote: »

I apologise if I have managed to get the incorrect information Im not exactly familiar with forum terminology. I do know what a sticky is but have no idea how to use the forum jump after following several links I finally ended up with the above which I thought was correct but obviously not. I will try again

Please just take your time to listen to the advice already given.
Dont worry you will pay nothing if you follow it.

Yes it may seem a lot to take in but if you take your time to digest it, it will all become clear soon enough

I was the same as you just over 2 weeks ago, but now after winning PE over 4 PCN's in a similar situation ( no 2 are the same) I know and understand how to beat these extortionate charges.

It doesnt matter what your mitigating circumstances are/where,
they will never win you anything.

What will WIN is following the advice carefully.

So what to do?????

Read the "NEWBIE THREADS" in and out upside down if you need 2.
Look for specific cases like yours i.e Parking Eye and read them too.

Then draft your appeal and post it on here for all the experts to look at (leave out personal data and PCN number).

Then someone will come along and advise you.

Just remember YOU WILL PAY NOTHING if you follow the advice given

Bobbydazzler

Since this a PE PCN you will probably need to do a "Soft Appeal as it is short enough to fit in PE's appeal section on their website (save the money for a stamp:) )

I think the following will suit you,but best wait for someone with a lot more knowledge than me to ok it.



I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on the following grounds:
a) The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified


b) As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent


c) There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land


d) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and also breaches the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regs 2013


e) There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied


f) Your ANPR is not maintained or in correct working order. Furthermore the system is not operated in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner


The purpose of this communication is threefold:


1. Formal challenge


There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn in the absence of evidence. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or prove beyond any doubt who was driving - or cancel the charge


2. ''Drop hands'' offer


I calculate that we have both incurred some nominal costs - under £15 – so this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs



3. Notice of cancellation of contract


I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged contract which was never properly offered or explained by you. The charge is not acknowledged, is not due and no 'service contract' from you was ever expressly requested by the driver or by me. Neither the driver nor myself gave 'prior express consent' or any consent at all for any contract to exist. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end


This constitutes the entirety of my challenge and nothing further will be added. You must now, within 35 days, EITHER (i) accept my challenge and notify me that the charge is cancelled, OR (ii) reject my challenge, send me a POPLA code, and suspend any collection activity pending my POPLA appeal


This is submitted online so I have kept a copy and this communication is clearly received by you unless proved otherwise. I look forward to your reply within 35 days and urge you to accept the drop hands offer and accept that I have cancelled any 'contract' because this resolves the dispute without cost.





Copy and paste this onto the ParkingEye appeal section (contact us tab) and then just fill in info requested on the PE website i.e PCN number, the registered keepers(this being you)do not give the drivers details and ensure you click the registered keeper box.

Click submit, and fingers crossed that will make it go away

Even if they turn down your appeal (which they probably wont because they will know your appeal has come from here) its off to PoPLA and the experts here will support you all the way.


Dont worry be happy

susi

Thank you BobbyD, I am still trawling through when I am able lol, I do have a problem with concentration but will keep at it, thank you. My son has actually had his appeal refused by ParkingEye so we now need to appeal to POPLA. They have given him another 14 days to appeal then they say he has to pay in full (no discount) if that fails.

Coupon-mad

But his POPLA appeal won't fail if he just uses the appropriate version from 'How to win at POPLA*' (there are 2 or 3 PE examples there, one for a free car park, one for a P&D car park and I think maybe one for a Motorway Services). Either way how much easier could this be? He's got a POPLA code, yes?


* the link is in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. Get your son to do it. Easy peasy. PE do not contest our versions of POPLA appeals.