Parking Ticket - Portishead Marina

Edna_Basher

Hi tlw_18

In addition to the point about unclear and badly lit signage, I think you also have a very strong case on grace periods.

I have a very recent copy of a ParkingEye evidence pack for Portishead Quays Marina. The signs pictured in the evidence pack include a table of Parking Tariffs – “First 15 minutes free, thereafter up to 1 hour £1.00, up to 2 hours £2.00 etc.”

It is important that the sign describes “parking tariffs” rather than tariffs for length of stay in the car park. ParkingEye’s ANPR cameras record the length of time spent in the car park, not the length of time that the car was actually parked.

In your opening post, you mention that the car was parked for 18 minutes. Is that the length of time that ParkingEye claims that the car spent in the car park (as measured by their ANPR cameras)? If so, allowing for the time to drive a car in and out of the car park, POPLA must reasonably accept that on the balance of probabilities the car was actually parked for less than 15 minutes (i.e. that no breach occurred).

This would also mean that ParkingEye were in breach of the BPA Code of Practice for not allowing for an adequate grace period.

Castle

And there's a 10 minute grace period to leave the car park

tlw_18

Thanks all, I'll get drafting!

tlw_18

And Edna Basher, yes the 18 minutes is how long they're claiming I was parked for, although as I recall there was difficulty:
a) Finding a space; and
b) Getting into it!

No lights anywhere in that car park, how anyone was supposed to be able to see any signs is beyond me entirely.

ManxRed

Parking Eye v Beavis actually works in YOUR favour, not theirs. It mentions that the charges are only valid IF the signage is clear. In your case, it wasn't so YOU should be citing PE v Beavis against them!

pappa_golf

tlw_18 wrote: »

And Edna Basher, yes the 18 minutes is how long they're claiming I was parked for, although as I recall there was difficulty:
a) Finding a space; and
b) Getting into it!

No lights anywhere in that car park, how anyone was supposed to be able to see any signs is beyond me entirely.

presumably they have sent you nice photo,s of the car entering and leaving


what are the timings of those? are they 18 mins apart , or 18 mins +10 mins grace period?


PS go back (twice) and take photos in daylight and at the time you parked , do this without a flash gun (?) both in the same standing spot , get something visible (dustbin/fence etc) to show they were taken from the same location


if they want to play hardball , tell them to pay for some lighting!

Edna_Basher

tlw_18 wrote: »

the 18 minutes is how long they're claiming I was parked for.

If you take another look at the Parking Charge Notice you'll see that the actual wording will state:

"Time in Car Park: 0 hours 18 minutes".

This is very different to claiming that the car was parked for 18 minutes.

Assuming that the car park signs have not been changed in the last couple of months (i.e. assuming that they still state Parking Tariffs: first 15 minutes free), I think that your case is clear cut - the car could not have been parked for more than 15 minutes and so there was no breach.

In my view, by issuing this Notice, ParkingEye are in breach of the BPA Code of Practice. Taking into account their contractual obligation to allow 15 minutes' free parking, together with their obligations under the BPA Code of Practice to allow reasonable grace periods, they should have calibrated their systems to prevent Notices being issued in any case where the "Time in Car Park" was less than 30 minutes (at the very least).

Edna_Basher

BJ63 has just posted a timely report of their POPLA victory against ParkingEye

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=70047797&postcount=1952

The winning appeal points were that the signs did not state that parking time was measured from the time of entry into the car park, together with a breach of the BPA Code of Practice on grace periods.

tlw_18

I went back today to take the pictures, no lights whatsoever, and on the day I was there it was pitch black and !!!!ing it down! However the signs say it was a residents parking zone only as in had to have a permit rather than pay x amount per hour. Will this affect anything?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can use your photos to show the driver could not have seen the terms, whatever they were, because the signs are far to high and unlit.

We need to see your POPLA draft appeal based upon the other examples in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. Long appeals work. We want to ensure you miss nothing out and don't say who was driving.