Parking Eye parking fine - Radisson Blu Durham

vwass07

Right - thanks for the responses, please see below, I have put this together using the comments made above.
Coupon-mad - The photos taken of the car look directly in the middle of the barriers into and out of the hotel car park - you can see where the yellow lines end.

I've tried to combine a bit from both of the previous drafts - any comments would be appreciated.

Note that this is the response to the PE case file. I'm not sure whether to include anything about the NTK being unclear (as I said before I thought that they were trying to intimate that I hadn't bought a ticket at all) and was quite naive in that I didn't check on here before and just e-mailed them a copy of the ticket. Hindsight is a great thing (!)


With regard to the PE case file I have the following comments to make:

Page 5 clearly states:

Date/Time in 5/110/15 09:35:01
Date/Time out 5/10/15 14:49:29
Time Allowed 0 hours 15 minutes 0 seconds
Time In Car Park 5 hours 14 minutes 28 seconds
Time Paid For 5 hours

On the 10th October 2015 a PCN was received explaining that £100 was due and the total time in the car park was 5 hours 14 minutes. This was very upsetting and shocking to have received this PCN as a ticket was purchased for the correct period of time. Parking Eye have stated that the arrival time in the car park recorded was 9:35 so the first 3 minutes was taken up finding a parking space, purchasing a ticket and returning to the car to display the ticket (surely this cannot count as extra time in the car park). The remaining 11 minutes was spent loading the car and leaving the car park as they have stated the departure time recorded as 14.49. This was not extra time parked as implied by Parking Eye as stated in their own paperwork the driver was within the 15 minute grace period (14 minutes 28 seconds to be precise)


After the initial request to annul the parking fine was refused, I spoke with Radisson Blu in Durham about the situation and they too agreed that the time within the 15 minute allowable period, so xxx from the hotel e-mailed PE directly on the 6th November requesting that the fine was cancelled. This has not been acknowledged within the file from PE, but have contacted them with regard to this and have received the following e-mail as confirmation that this had been sent.


Dear xxx

Please be assured that the cancelation request has been sent to parking eye on your behalf. Please allow 2-3 weeks for a cancelation confirmation to reach you via post.

If I can be of any further assistance in the meantime, please let me know

Regards
xx


________________________________________
xxx
Reception Manager
T: +44 (0) 191 372 7200, +44 (0) 191 372 7217
F: +44 (0)191 372 7201
xx
xx
Radisson Blu Hotel, Durham

Frankland Lane, City Of Durham DH1 5TA
Closegate Hotel Development (Durham) Limited.
Company Reg. No. 00205219


Furthermore on page 6 they then go on to say that:

'By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions"

"If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking"

ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites, which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. These grace periods are sufficient for this purpose'.

This indicates that the 15 minute grace period is only allowable for the first 15 minutes of entering the car park, yet within all the signage that they have used as evidence I can't see anything that states this, I would assume that it should say 'First 15 minutes is free', but it clearly states on the signage 'Up to 15 minutes free'. Additionally the small print on the sign is illegible on their submitted scanned images.


Additionally on looking into the British Parking Association Code of Practice this requires that additional time upon entry and further time upon exit, is to be allowed. It is wholly unreasonable and a breach of the CPUTRs (misleading action) for ParkingEye to ignore their industry code, which states re grace periods:

Prior to parking:-

13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.

Upon returning to the vehicle:-

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 11 minutes.

Therefore driving in and out within an allowed grace period is not a chargeable contravention and was not a situation covered recently by PE v Beavis.

This was undoubtedly a ‘concealed pitfall or trap’, which resulted in a disproportionate and unfair charge which placed an unfair burden upon the driver, breaching Schedule 2 of the UTCCRs and the Unfair Contract Terms Act:

‘’SCHEDULE 2 Regulation 5(5) INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE
REGARDED AS UNFAIR - 1. Terms which have the object or effect of –

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;
(i) irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which he had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract...’’

‘’SCHEDULE 2 Regulation 5(5) INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE
REGARDED AS UNFAIR - 1. Terms which have the object or effect of –

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977:
‘A person cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.’

The driver relied upon the expiry time on the Pay and Display ticket and returned to the car in time so complied with all the P&D machine terms, the ‘extra time’ was spent loading bags, which is not parking and all this non-parking activity was well within the grace period allowed by PE and by the BPA CoP.

Obviously if drivers had any idea their P&D ticket would not be the time under which they would later be bound and that the operator held all the cards with a secret timing already working against them, they would not park at this car park at all because this is contrary to good faith.

£100 is hugely disproportionate to any alleged unpaid tariff simply for non-parking time spent driving in and out of the hotel.

Coupon-mad

Go for it, I say. That makes a lot more sense and hopefully the arguments about the grace period/not actually parking time and proof of the hotel cancellation email, are enough for POPLA. This is an absolute scam by PE; they keep issuing PCNs like yours for the time taken to drive in and out, which is scandalous when the machine provides a ticket with a timing on it which an ordinary person is going to properly rely upon, as you would.

You will need to email this to POPLA because that's too long for the Portal comments box but I always used to email POPLA who are fine at adding a PDF of comments to the case file.

Make sure the 10 digit verification code is in the subject line and make sure you do attach the PDF. Just put a short covering email to say you've just had the evidence pack (no need to say when) and could your comments as the appellant, now be added to the case file.

vwass07

Well after a lot of waiting I heard back from POPLA, their response is:

'The operator’s case is that the appellant did not pay the correct amount for parking.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that she entered the vehicle registration in the terminal at the hotel.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator monitors the site using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 09:35 and exiting at 14:49. The appellant has stated that she entered her vehicle registration in the terminal at the hotel. The operator has provided a system printout that confirms the appellant paid for parking at 09:38 and this expired at 14:38. The appellant was at the site for 5 hours and 14 minutes. The operator has provided photographs of the signs at the site. The signs state the tariffs that are available. Further, the operator has provided a site map that confirms the location of the 14 signs at the site. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states ‘You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.’ The appellant’s vehicle exceeded the minimum grace period of 10 minutes, in the circumstances, I do not consider 14 minutes to fall within a reasonable grace period. I accept that the appellant registered the vehicle; however, the appellant parked for longer than was paid for. I can only conclude the operator issued the Parking Charge correctly.'

I'm a bit miffed as it's as though they didn't even read the evidence - the 14 minutes is the time before and after the ticket not just after, and although she has stated 10 minutes the Code of Practice states 11 minutes - and there is no mention at all about the 15 minutes grace period. What a waste of time!

Very disappointed and have no comeback on their decision unless I want to to to CAB or down a legal route.

Coupon-mad

Wow. A bit miffed?! You do know you do not have to pay and the Hotel wanted it cancelled didn't they? There is no 'legitimate interest' in pursuing a charge against the wishes of the landowner so this would be defendable if PE ever tried a small claim over it.

POPLA have misunderstood and misread the grace periods in the CoP and not realised there are two...one before parking, to decide whether to stay and one after which has to be at least 11 minutes now...so three or four minutes is all it took for you to drive in, find a space, park, get out, lock the car, queue at the machine, read the signs, decide to enter into the contract and then pay.

And POPLA think that's unreasonable??

Didn't you say earlier that the signs allow up to 15 minutes grace and POPLA saw those signs??

The appellant’s case is that she entered the vehicle registration in the terminal at the hotel

Hang on, surely your POPLA appeal argued more than this? And your rebuttal pointed out more.

Are POPLA even reading these rebuttals I wonder??

You do know you do not have to pay; POPLA isn't binding on you.

It looks as if all the evidence was not looked at so this would be worth a formal complaint to POPLA's Lead Adjudicator (not about the decision - you can't say ' I disgree with the decision' but you CAN ask for a re-hearing with ALL evidence to be reviewed including the rebuttal and the 'grace periods' issue in the CoP and on the signs). Also the Hotel cancellation email isn't mentioned.

POPLA can relist a case if all evidence was not in front of the Assessor or properly taken into account (BPA CoP x 2 grace periods, 15 minutes grace allowed, you say...).

I don't believe it was all in front of the Assessor and he's misread the CoP anyway about grace periods (plural).

salmosalaris

I'm starting to think POPLA is going to be a waste of time . You could possibly have exceeded the 10 min grace period to leave by only one second using those timings

vwass07

Nope - that was it - it was like they hadn't bothered reading it. Was told last time I chased it that there was a huge backlog - obviously rushing through it all....

vwass07

Would be interesting to see how many cases have been successful since November?

Coupon-mad

You need to work on a complaint as they haven't considered all the evidence. I've edited my post above.

vwass07

It does state that if you have a complaint about the standard of service that we have provided, please send us an email to complaints@popla.co.uk

Anyone offer any words of advice for a response apart from saying the service sucks?

Coupon-mad

I've already told you what to say, so put that into an email and head it up in the subject line: 'Formal complaint - not all evidence was in front of the Assessor or considered - POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx'

You can show us your complaint words first if you aren't confident about complaints but I have explained above, what you can and can't complain about.