Tower Road Newquay - ParkingEye/POPLA

Coupon-mad

josingh20 wrote: »

Evidence pack received late Tuesday afternoon, have been out the country until yesterday. So am looking at this today.

PE have sent nearly 50 pages of "evidence" showing their signage. I am not disputing their signage, as I did purchase a ticket.
The difference comes from the time i entered to the time i left according to ANPR. I entered at 13:05 and a 1hr ticket paid for at 13:12. That is a difference of 7 mins to wait and find a car parking space. Therefore an end time of 14:12.

I then returned to the car, and am seen exiting at 14:27. This accounts for me returning to the car around about 14:15, putting pram in the car, and then waiting about 5 mins to exit carpark due to queue on main road. We were just sat in the main car park. and then exiting. This is a difference of 12 mins.

How could i strengthen my rebuttal? I state general preestimae of loss, and they have responded with Bevis case. Not sure how to proceed other than to say I bought a ticket and was delayed entering and exiting.

Also, it says nothing else other than here is the evidence. Who do I rebuff to? PArkin Eye? POPLA?

If POPLA sent you an email, telling you they'd got the evidence themselves, it tells you what to do.

Use the good POPLA appeal - the one you first saw, which was written for this sort of car park - to find the words to rebut it.

I do hope you didn't imply who was driving in your POPLA appeal? If so then you must continue in the same way, writing only about the driver in the first person, not 'I entered at 13:05 and a 1hr ticket paid for at 13:12. That is a difference of 7 mins to wait and find a car parking space. Therefore an end time of 14:12. I then returned to the car, and am seen exiting at 14:27.'

josingh20

Coupon-mad wrote: »

If POPLA sent you an email, telling you they'd got the evidence themselves, it tells you what to do.

Use the good POPLA appeal - the one you first saw, which was written for this sort of car park - to find the words to rebut it.

I do hope you didn't imply who was driving in your POPLA appeal? If so then you must continue in the same way, writing only about the driver in the first person, not 'I entered at 13:05 and a 1hr ticket paid for at 13:12. That is a difference of 7 mins to wait and find a car parking space. Therefore an end time of 14:12. I then returned to the car, and am seen exiting at 14:27.'

Hi Coupon, Hi Umkomass,
Thanks for the sage words of advice. All I have received from PE is:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find enclosed all information sent to POPLA regarding your recent case reference number above.

Yours sincerely

ParkingEye Team

I will word the timings and outline the 10 mins grace entering/exiting. Looks like I have stayed 5 mins over grace period on exiting.

Date/Time In 19/09/2015 13:05:50

Date/Time Out 19/09/2015 14:27:31

Time Allowed 0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds

Time In Car Park 1 hours 21 minutes 41 seconds

Time Paid For 1 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds

Payment Options Paid Parking Machines & PayByPhone

Number of Paid Parking

Machines

5

I shall post their supporting statement, where it states Bevis case.

josingh20

Here is the PE statement:

Further Information

The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states 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.

ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA) regulations. The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white background. There are also signs at the entrance to the car park which adjoin an illuminated public road and so we can confirm that there is sufficient ambient lighting at this site.

It is up to the person who is seeking to park in an area to make sure that they can validly park in that area. The onus is on the person parking.

You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the value of our Parking Charges.

The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’. In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”.

Lord Hodge states that, “...local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive [...] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”

ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable.

Initially, ParkingEye would like to state that we are a leading user of ANPR Technology. We ensure that
our cameras, technology and processes are of the highest quality, and have built up this expertise with
almost 10 years of experience of using ANPR cameras. We ensure that we use the best cameras, and that these are expertly configured. We have also developed a robust process for handling the data and ensuring the accuracy of the system. ParkingEye is regularly required to provide data taken from these ANPR cameras for Police investigations.

Once ParkingEye has installed the cameras, signage and other technology at a site, we will test the system extensively before Parking Charges are issued on site. This involves allowing the site to function normally without Parking Charges being issued, to ensure that the system is functioning correctly.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice contains guidelines for the use of ANPR cameras at Section 21. We comply fully with this;
21.1 – ParkingEye uses ANPR cameras in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. All signage contains the universally recognised symbol for the use of these cameras, and it is made clear that ANPR technology is in use on site.
21.2 – All data undergoes a multiple stage checking process, undertaken by trained ParkingEye staff to ensure that Parking Charges are issued correctly.
21.3 – All ANPR equipment is monitored and kept in good working order. A central team of trained Technical Support Engineers proactively monitor the performance of all systems to ensure the accuracy of data collected. Automated monitoring and alerting ensure potential issues are highlighted and dealt with quickly along with data management routines to ensure affected data does not result in a Parking Charge being issued. Dedicated mobile engineers respond to physical faults which require on-site resolution with testing periods to ensure equipment is configured and working to our high standards. Equipment is selected and deployed to ensure a reliable and robust solution which performs consistently and accurately.Physical and logical access to data is restricted and processed securely. Full auditing of user access and actions ensures clear and full accountability. Dedicated server facilities are protected by named user access control systems. ParkingEye has passed the relevant and most recent BPA audit.
21.4 – ParkingEye complies with all of the relevant guidelines including those set out by the ICO, DVLA and CO.
21.5 – The Notices to Keeper comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. ParkingEye’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and software are fully compliant with the British Parking Association Code of Practice. We ensure that the cameras are checked regularly by both automated routines and Technical Support Engineers to ensure that they are in good working order, and that they are producing accurate data. We have passed both our British Parking Association and DVLA audits and follow all DVLA requirements concerning the data that we obtain.

Images recorded by the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems are time-stamped at source. The ANPR servers use NTP to regularly verify the accuracy of the local time clock with any adjustments being logged thus ensuring that all images are captured and stamped with an accurate time and date. Network Time Protocol (NTP) is a widely used standard to accurately synchronise computer time over wide area networks. Institutions that use NTP technology include; HM Revenue & Customs, The Metropolitan Police, NASA, Inland Revenue, The Land Registry, RBS, NASDAQ, Buckingham Palace, GlaxoSmithKline, Deutsche Bank, BBC, NHS, BAE Systems, BT, HP, DELL and the Bank of England. We firmly believe that these time-stamped images are accurate.

Any time deviance detected on the ANPR servers generates an automatic alert monitored by the Technical Support Team at ParkingEye Head Office. If at any stage of the process the ANPR cameras are found to be deviating, Parking Charges are not issued. There are automated and manual checks to ensure that the cameras are accurate.

Coupon-mad

Hi Coupon, Hi Umkomass,
Thanks for the sage words of advice. All I have received from PE is:

I know. I said 'if POPLA emailed you, they've told you what to do'. However, I know from experience that POPLA sometimes forget to email to say they have the evidence. Did they?

josingh20

No POPLA. Have not emailed, just PE

Coupon-mad

Never mind what PE said, it's all standard.

The question is whether you did use all the decent appeal points in your POPLA appeal, that were in the other Tower Rd example in the NEWBIES thread? You could have used that as your base POPLA appeal, that's why it's there - did you use it all? If not, then put those points into a rebuttal now. If you didn't, then reiterate them now.

Show us your draft rebuttal.

josingh20

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Never mind what PE said, it's all standard.

The question is whether you did use all the decent appeal points in your POPLA appeal, that were in the other Tower Rd example in the NEWBIES thread? You could have used that as your base POPLA appeal, that's why it's there - did you use it all? If not, then put those points into a rebuttal now. If you didn't, then reiterate them now.

Show us your draft rebuttal.

Hi Coupon, I used the newbies thread to write the following:

josingh20 wrote: »

This is what I supplied:

Dear Mr Singh

Thank you for contacting POPLA.

Please find below the evidence you have provided for your appeal;

IT is not the case that I entered the car park and then not bought a ticket. A ticket was clearly paid for and I am being asked to pay for either staying beyond the period paid for or for remaining in the car park longer than permitted. The signage does not clearly define "longer than permitted". I have uploaded a copy of the ticket I paid for.

I was issued with a parking ticket on 19th September 2015 but I believe it was unfairly issued.
After entering the car park with my family, we spent 10 minutes waiting for a car parking space to become available. We then PAID for a parking ticket (including entering the car registration mark) for 1 hour at £1.50. The ANPR marks me as having entered the car park at 13:05. I paid for my ticket at 13:12. We then returned to the car within the 1 hr paid parking period with my 10mth young son, pram and all from the beach, cleaned off, loaded the car, fed tired hungry baby and then proceeded to exit, which was busy and queuing for approx 10mins to get out of the busy summers day at Newquay car park. The ANPR says my car exited at 14:27.
In addition, the charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to ParkingEye or the landowner.
In my case, the £100 charge being asked for far exceeds the cost to the landowner of £1.50. I therefore feel the amount ParkingEye have asked for is excessive.
There is also insufficient signage to suggest any grace period when exiting the car park.

Coupon-mad

Oh dear. I wish you'd simply copied the longer, full appeal example you saw in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. You are on the back foot now. You read the NEWBIES thread but still managed to give away who was driving and you entirely missed out the appeal point about no landowner authority, letting them off the hook to have to produce a contract in their evidence. That's such a shame, seeing as 'no landowner authority' has already proved a sure-fire winner at POPLA recently.

Have a look at this rebuttal example:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/69746918#Comment_69746918

And as well as what you see there about grace periods, you should reiterate that the car was only actually parked for an hour and PE have shown no evidence of actual parking time to the contrary.

And in any case, the signs are headed 'parking tariffs' not 'driving in and out/moving traffic offence tariffs'.

And it is unfair in a consumer contract to provide a tangible pay and display ticket with a parking expiry time on it but then to try to hold a consumer to an unknown, unstated timing they can have no awareness of whatsoever. Sharp practice and unfair under the UTCCRs.

The only contract formed was at the pay and display machine to get a ticket and return within the expiry time, which you did. Bearing in mind it was a very busy car park, the time taken to queue for a space, queue for the P&D machine, and at the end to load up, queue, drive round pedestrians coming off the beach and proceed along a fairly long access road, then queue to join the main road again (which is where the second ANPR photo was taken) was entirely reasonable and none of it is part of parking time.

And you need to show how your case differs from the Beavis case. As you will be aware, that was about a 2 hours free car park where the penalty rule was 'engaged' but in that case alone, based on the unique facts of it, PE managed to persuade the Judges (Lord knows how - well some of the Lords know) that they had 'disengaged' that rule by showing it was 'justified' (LOL) to charge £85 in order to faciliate the offer of 2 hours free to everyone.

That's not the case here. It is an indisputable fact that the 'penalty rule' is certainly engaged in every private parking ticket case - but here, PE have failed to disengage it. They can't just shout 'Beavis case - look at the clarity!' where the facts differ significantly, and expect POPLA to believe the same level of commercial justification applies where the tariff was paid for the period of parking and the operator is in fact trying to charge for driving time/grace period time. Seeing as the BPA CoP allows two grace periods, one before and one after paid for time (the second, on its own, must be at least 11 minutes even in an empty car park) and this was the height of Summer where the driver was delayed in moving traffic due to a very long queue on arrival and again upon leaving, any reasonable man would not expect to pay a 'parking tariff' for that driving time.

josingh20

Coupon-

You clearly are very skilled at forming arguments!

I have submitted the evidence rebuttal, and shall await a reply. I shall keep this thread updated when I hear either way.

Thank you once again for your help and coaching.

Coupon-mad

I am a good arguer - like many middle aged women! Assertive, I call it...