Parking Eye WelcomeBreak (timing issues?)

Coupon-mad

Email every time, no post. Not even a 2nd class stamp is needed.

Time is not running out all the time you are copying PE in and they can see the BPA is investigating a complaint. That's why email is best as it is immediate and shows the recipient who else was emailed. If you were being silent to PE I might be concerned but you are not.

Your POPLA appeal will be based on several things:

- at WB services, the signs and cameras are in the wrong place at the edge of the site, which wrongly catches people who purchase petrol/clean the car/fill up with water/put air in the tyres.

- Dept for Transport rules make it mandatory that two hours rest in the car park is provided. Not 2 hours total stay on site including car maintenance/petrol/tyres, etc.

- The photos show the car on a slip road, not within the car park area or even approaching it. Often, merely showing the car approaching the petrol station area. Yes?

- The keeper can't be liable because the NTK provably arrived too late, as confirmed by this current discussion with the BPA about the error in the address, caused not by your V5 but by PE.

- There is no evidence that the individual PE are pursuing is the person liable for the charge (= you must argue that's the driver only, as the deadline was missed to serve the PCN, due to PE's error). No evidence of the driver = no liability for a keeper appellant.

- Landowner authority is always worth a mention, PE sometimes omit the contract. And Schedule 1 of the WB contract arguably confirms that PE cannot just sue people, that is subject 'always' to Welcome Break's agreement. You can argue no such agreement has been given in this case.

- Unclear signage DOES always feature in a POPLA appeal. At WB sites many people never see the signs about a 2 hr restriction.

- And you can put PE to strict proof that they have signs INSIDE the facility buildings as that's part of the Dept for Transport rules too.

- WB sites use a business model which was was mentioned in the Beavis case as being 'entirely different', whereby the charge after two hours is stated as a £sum (£11 or £12?). So, that's the unpaid parking charge and the PCN doesn't state it, merely escalates that sum to £100 which is 'out of all proportion' to the £11/£12 and therefore just the sort of unconscionable penalty that does engage the penalty rule and is not saved by the Beavis reasoning.



If you get a POPLA code and try, then lose, you are given 14 days to pay £100. So why panic now?

oskiwowwow

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Email every time, no post. Not even a 2nd class stamp is needed.

Good to know, since PE emails are worded as if they are not reading them.

Your POPLA appeal will be based on several things:
- at WB services, the signs and cameras are in the wrong place at the edge of the site, which wrongly catches people who purchase petrol/clean the car/fill up with water/put air in the tyres.

It happens that, at this site, there are two signs on the way in and a huge sign that you have to walk right past, next to a pay machine, to get into the services area. I think it would be hard to argue this - in fact you can see the signs on Google maps street view (I used that to double-check). I'm not saying they are perfect, and need to make a trip back to the site perhaps to see if they say there is a camera/CCTV etc. It might be missing from the first two signs, doubt it's missing from the large one. (All FYI.)

- Dept for Transport rules make it mandatory that two hours rest in the car park is provided. Not 2 hours total stay on site including car maintenance/petrol/tyres, etc.

Sadly was there for one hour over the two. And the petrol station is completely separate.

- The photos show the car on a slip road, not within the car park area or even approaching it. Often, merely showing the car approaching the petrol station area. Yes?

Have checked again and the photos make it hard to tell where the cameras are, but knowing the petrol station (separate) and that the entry to services parking is separate, I think the cameras are actually at the parking entry and exit points - best I can tell. Certainly at exit. Entry camera might be a bit further out but am 99.9% sure it isn't before the petrol area as there is a hotel entry there too and they'd be snapping everyone even those not entering the parking area!

...

- There is no evidence that the individual PE are pursuing is the person liable for the charge (= you must argue that's the driver only, as the deadline was missed to serve the PCN, due to PE's error). No evidence of the driver = no liability for a keeper appellant.

Sounds the best point!

- Landowner authority is always worth a mention, PE sometimes omit the contract. And Schedule 1 of the WB contract arguably confirms that PE cannot just sue people, that is subject 'always' to Welcome Break's agreement. You can argue no such agreement has been given in this case.

Thanks. I suspect that if we said to the WB manager that PE were going to sue us, they might possibly be scared into asking PE to drop or reduce charges. They [WB] appear to be ignoring us now.

- Unclear signage DOES always feature in a POPLA appeal. At WB sites many people never see the signs about a 2 hr restriction.

Hate to repeat this, but in all honesty I think the signage is more clear here than most!

- And you can put PE to strict proof that they have signs INSIDE the facility buildings as that's part of the Dept for Transport rules too.

Need to check this... (don't know if there are signs inside or not!)

- WB sites use a business model which was was mentioned in the Beavis case as being 'entirely different', whereby the charge after two hours is stated as a £sum (£11 or £12?). So, that's the unpaid parking charge and the PCN doesn't state it, merely escalates that sum to £100 which is 'out of all proportion' to the £11/£12 and therefore just the sort of unconscionable penalty that does engage the penalty rule and is not saved by the Beavis reasoning.

One thing I did note is that none of the PE correspondence says what the unpaid charge actually was. (I didn't make a note but am pretty sure it was £10.)

If you get a POPLA code and try, then lose, you are given 14 days to pay £100. So why panic now?

As long as I can keep email-head-bashing and end up getting a POPLA code that's great... been trying now (with much waiting) for 2 months, no luck yet!

Many thanks again Coupon-mad, you are certainly the Saint of Fighting PPCs!

oskiwowwow

One more concern I'm still worried about:
PE sent PCN to wrong address, we received it but very late.
PE sent rejection of appeal to correct address, received it, but it stated they had sent a LBCCC.
If PE sent an LBCCC we have not received it, and they had to have sen to wrong address.

What if PE has passed it forward for a court claim but ALSO to the wrong address before we got any notice? (As the letter stating they'd sent it already is all we have other than PCN.)

Or, in other words, what happens if - while still trying just to even get POPLA appeal going - they have already started court proceedings? (Due to no reply to the LBCCC we never got!)

Thanks.

oskiwowwow

oskiwowwow wrote: »

One more concern I'm still worried about:...

Or, in other words, what happens if - while still trying just to even get POPLA appeal going - they have already started court proceedings? (Due to no reply to the LBCCC we never got!)

Still hopeful someone has some idea about this. (Busy forum today so hopefully not out of line to give this a bump.)

Coupon-mad

Ask the BPA to confirm this - a court claim sent to the 'wrong' address - has not occurred and to investigate and check that PE are using your full address because they certainly have it (show the BPA the rejection letter). Conclude by pushing again for a POPLA code and copy in PE again, be a thorn in their side.

oskiwowwow

Thanks so much.

oskiwowwow

UPDATE.
Email received from BPA. Just leaves me shaking my head - not our problem, PE doesn't have to get you a POPLA code etc.

Now what?????? Presumably I need to go back and say that the appeal couldn't be made due to non-receipt of most of their paperwork and none in a timely fashion!
Thoughts welcome.

[FONT=&quot]Good morning[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your email[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The BPA is a membership association and not a regulatory body, and we do not have the resource or authority to deal with complaints of this nature, although we are sorry to learn of your experience. As we have no legal authority we can only investigate any possible breach of the code of practice, but the circumstances you have described, it is not covered by the Code. This means we are unable to assist you on this occasion. Please be aware that a motorist has a certain timeframe to appeal directly to an operator, and if this has lapsed then there will be no option to appeal to POPLA within 28 days, which is the current timeframe allowed to submit an appeal.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As Parking Eye, despite the reasons, did not receive the appeal within timescale, it is at their discretion as to whether they accept the appeal and decide to uphold or reject it. We appreciate this won’t have been the response you may have hoped for, but we suggest that you seek legal advice regarding your position. As we are not legally trained we cannot advise you on this point.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely,

[FONT=&quot]Joanna Barnes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]AOS Investigation Team[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Presumably I need to go back and say that the appeal couldn't be made due to non-receipt of most of their paperwork and none in a timely fashion!

Yes, keep going.

Tell her that it is wrong to say she is 'unable to assist you on this occasion' because clearly the BPA can at least take the matter up with the operator. The BPA have not even shown you that they have asked ParkingEye why they made the error in the address in the first place - seeing as the V5 is correct - and nor have you heard from ParkingEye as regards their plans to address their failure and place you on an equal footing to another consumer not caused such unfair detriment by ParkingEye's own error.

Further, you believe that an ADR is required to be offered for at least a year and the '28 days' is not based upon any law whatsoever. Inflexibility and vexatious pursuit of a 'charge' and denial of ADR in these circumstances appears to be a deliberate attempt by the BPA to allow member firms to get away with anything they like.

Say something similar to LoveNorfolk's BPA complaint:

Reading the missions and values on the BPA website, quite clearly you are failing dismally to “put the consumer at the heart of our thinking”.

Finish by saying this matter remains in dispute and you are not asking for legal advice, only for a semblance of fairness from an operator who caused the delay. Indeed, it is undisputed that you DID appeal within 28 days of receipt (the actual date of service) of the Notice and ParkingEye has not denied the address error.

oskiwowwow

Okay thanks again Coupon-Mad.

I'm still unclear on what might transpire IF the wonderful PE folks did decide to pursue a court claim after supposedly sending an LBCCC we didn't receive?

Coupon-mad

I would pre-empt that with yet another email to PE, same wording as you are sending the BPA but add that you require to know within seven days:

- have they issued a court claim? If so, where did those papers get sent by the courts and when (exact date) and what is the claim number?

If not, as they are aware you have never received any LBCCC, if they intend to proceed further then you reasonably expect an investigation into their failure to address the PCN properly and then a POPLA code, due to the reasons already formally raised with the BPA, the complaint for which is not closed.

Basically, do not at any point remain silent to PE. Pass the buck back, then back again, and again.