ParkingEye charge - Pokemon hunting

mamamia11

I have received two ParkingEye PCNs relating to Town Quay car park, Southampton on 19/7 and 20/7, and am uncertain as to how to proceed with an appeal. As far as I can tell, I have two possible grounds for appeal:

1 - The notices were received outside the relevant period as specified in the Protection of Freedoms Act, paragraphs 9.4/5/6 which states (a) that 'the relevant period is 14 days beginning with the day on which the specified period of parking occurred', and (b) that 'a notice sent by post is to be presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted'. As both notices were issued on 3/8, they are presumed to have been delivered on 5/8, 17 and 16 days after the incidents. What I am not sure of is how decisive this is in terms of an appeal. I have also seen advice to the effect that in this case it is best to just ignore the notice, and respond to any debt collection letters by pointing out the failure and asking them not contact me again.

2 - Did not park in the car park, merely drove round hunting for Pokemons as this had been identified as a 'hot spot'. The small print on one of the notices reads as follows "By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these terms and conditions (the “Parking Contract”) and are authorised to park only if you follow these correctly". The car park is identified as 'Pay-and-Display', and my experience of such car parks is that I am free to drive round them as much as I like. Is this grounds for appeal? Certainly not the only one who has been caught like this - on both occasions there was a number of other Pokemon hunters doing the same thing.

I'm sorry if I am asking questions that have already been answered - I have looked through postings on the Forum and am still not clear as to what is my best course of action. I would be really grateful for any advice you can give me.

catfunt

How long were you in the car park for?

Have a careful read through the NEWBIES thread at the top of this forum.

Redx

1) yes , plus I think the land is not relevant for POFA2012 anyway

2) no chance , you are on private land and have no authorisation to be there, parked or not

read the NEWBIES sticky thread and use the blue text appeal, online , appeal as keeper , do not reveal who was driving

grace periods may come into play if it was a short drive around , say 10 minutes or less , so how long did their cameras catch your vehicle "on site" for ?

no locus standii is another appeal point (no landowner contract) , especially if bylaws apply

mamamia11

Thank you catfunt - long enough! I'm afraid I was outside the grace period of 15 mins - 43 and 50 minutes. Lots of Pokemon!

Sorry Redx , I don't understand:

"1) yes , plus I think the land is not relevant for POFA2012 anyway"

beamerguy

mamamia11 wrote: »

Thank you catfunt - long enough! I'm afraid I was outside the grace period of 15 mins - 43 and 50 minutes. Lots of Pokemon!

Sorry Redx , I don't understand:

"1) yes , plus I think the land is not relevant for POFA2012 anyway"

This Pokemon craze is getting costly. I'm sure there are big forums all about Pokemon and you should warn people never to enter car parks where devils reside

Marvel1

beamerguy wrote: »

This Pokemon craze is getting costly. I'm sure there are big forums all about Pokemon and you should warn people never to enter car parks where devils reside

I just hope it's the passengers looking for the Pokeman than the driver :eek:

DollyDee_2

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Up%20to%20date%20port%20plan.pdf

Which car park was it? The Leisureworld one or the one by the Red Jet & Red Funnel ferry terminals?

The one by the ferry terminals is subject to byelaws but probably not the Leisureworld one.

Posted by EdnaBasher:

"Hi Randell82

The POPLA Case 6060755093 you quote is one of our successes against ParkingEye. This related to an incident at the car park at Southampton Town Quay (by the Red Jet and Red Funnel ferry terminals). Parking on this land is subject to ABP Southampton Harbour Byelaws meaning that only the vehicle's driver can be held liable for parking charges.

Thus, the Byelaws argument will only be useful to you if you appealed as the vehicle's keeper rather than as the driver.

Although you state that your case relates to the same car park (i.e. Town Quay), you also refer to Southampton Leisureworld which is located further along West Quay Road. Based on the map contained within the byelaws, I'm pretty sure that the car park at the Leisureworld complex falls outside of the Port of Southampton's boundaries."

king312

Be careful, you can get robbed not only by thugs but corporate criminals via PCN trainers

mamamia11

DollyDee wrote: »

http://www.southamptonvts.co.uk/admin/content/files/PDF_Downloads/Up%20to%20date%20port%20plan.pdf

Which car park was it? The Leisureworld one or the one by the Red Jet & Red Funnel ferry terminals?

The one by the ferry terminals is subject to byelaws but probably not the Leisureworld one.

Posted by EdnaBasher:

"Hi Randell82

The POPLA Case 6060755093 you quote is one of our successes against ParkingEye. This related to an incident at the car park at Southampton Town Quay (by the Red Jet and Red Funnel ferry terminals). Parking on this land is subject to ABP Southampton Harbour Byelaws meaning that only the vehicle's driver can be held liable for parking charges.

Thus, the Byelaws argument will only be useful to you if you appealed as the vehicle's keeper rather than as the driver.

Although you state that your case relates to the same car park (i.e. Town Quay), you also refer to Southampton Leisureworld which is located further along West Quay Road. Based on the map contained within the byelaws, I'm pretty sure that the car park at the Leisureworld complex falls outside of the Port of Southampton's boundaries."

It is the Town Quay (Short Stay) car park, which I believe is an ABP car park.

mamamia11

So does 'no keeper liability' mean that as long as I do not name the driver, the charge is not enforceable?

Edna_Basher

Correct - the car park at Town Quay is not relevant land under POFA 2012 which means that ParkingEye's claim is limited only to the driver - you have no obligation to tell them who that was.

However, you still have to go through a two stage process to get your two charges cancelled (the same, separate process for each charge):

1. Submit your initial dispute with ParkingEye (which you can do online). ParkingEye will reject your challenge and will provide you with a POPLA code.

2. Use this code to escalate your dispute to POPLA. With assistance from this Forum you will submit the winning words and ParkingEye will be required to cancel the charge. Job done.


MSE user hoopertr0n is a couple of weeks ahead of you - here's a link to their thread.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5503359