Parking Eye NTK

Odyn

Hi all.

I have today received a "PCN" from Parking Eye regarding a short overstay in a car park that allows 2 hours of parking. I have read around considerably today and am ready to send my appeal to Parking Eye.


Do you think it is wortth getting in touch with Lidl (shop by the car park)? I don't have receipts of recent bank transfers but I do shop there sometimes.
All advice much appreciated, thanks.

Edit:: Initial appeal sent, thread to be updated when I get a reply.

Redx

if you are going to alter that template , then dont make it as if its from the driver

say something like "as keeper , I believe your ANPR system fails to take into account the time it takes for a driver to navigate" blah blah

as for the grace period of clause #13 , you missed half of it out as you only catered for the departure, not the arrival

the BPA CoP also has the arrival , park up and read the signs time (unspecified but is 10 minutes for council tickets)

the exit time is "over 10 minutes , meaning 11 or more minutes

sum total ? a theoretical 21 minutes or more , much more then they billed you for

Umkomaas

I also believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

You may have a problem with that one as ParkingEye Aberystwyth (Rheidol Retail Park is it?) is the very same ParkingEye in the Beavis case. Are the signs at Aber so different to those in Beavis to justify this comment? I think that, generally, their signs are consistent across the UK, but I'm happy to be corrected.

The Grace Period prescribed in the BPA is 'plural' - time before parking and time after parking - as follows:

13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
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.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the speci c grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
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 10 minutes.

So 12 minutes 'overstay' would fall within the 'essentially binding' (as per Beavis) BPA CoP definition of what is allowable. Test them with this in your initial appeal, but also make sure, that should it go as far as POPLA, that it is one of your main appeal planks there.

Chances of winning at the initial appeal stage are generally poor, but despite being one of the most despised PPCs, PE can sometimes 'see sense' and cancel at this stage. But best you don't build up too many hopes and plan for the longer run, with your initial appeal purely a route to a POPLA code, with which and a good second stage appeal to POPLA, a win is a better prospect.

Don't be seduced by any discount, it's designed to encourage you away from winning a 100% discount via POPLA.

Odyn

Thanks guys. I will amend the first appeal to reinforce that I am only the RK and to highlight the grace period issue.

Second draft to follow.

Umkomaas

Is it the Rheidol Retail Park? If so, do a forum search on 'ParkingEye Rheidol'as your search term. There were some classic cases there last year from which you might draw some ideas/encouragement.

Change the search engine default setting from 'search threads' to 'search posts' for a more comprehensive range of results.

Umkomaas

I also believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers before they park.

Have you decided to ignore my advice about the signage?

Odyn

Sorry, you think that part should be removed?

Redx

you also ignored my point about keeper and driver so here it is amended

As the registered keeper, I believe your ANPR system fails to take into account the time it takes a driver to navigate through a busy car park

you are trying to use a keeper appeal and not look like you were the driver

amend your posts to show that the rk and driver are not considered the same

the driver may not have seen the signs , never use the words "me , myself , or I"

Umkomaas

Odyn wrote: »

Sorry, you think I should delete that part?

What do you think? I haven't seen the signs at Aber, but merely comment from experience of dealing with hundreds of PE tickets.

Redx

doesnt mean they werent there , nor prominent

we cannot comment on stuff we havent seen in places we have not been to

the idea is to prompt you into thinking about things

like post #8 where the word I should be removed (or do you not think that PE can view this forum and read threads and take screenshots like the rest of us , despite it being a free forum that anyone including parking company staff can join up to and up to 7 billion people can read ? hint

one of the reasons we tell people not to alter the template is the trouble they get into when they add their own words

Odyn

Point taken.

Aside from that do you think there is anything else I should add/remove? I'd like to get it sent as soon as possible.

Cheers