ParkingEye Fine - Tower Road, Newquay

Umkomaas

However, I think you're being too lenient with the BPA; in my view they are misinterpreting their own Code of Practice on grace periods to the detriment of consumers.

Cue the next re-write of the CoP, to fix that misinterpretation to a correct one! Any bets?

Sam_Lyons

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Well done on your POPLA victory, Sam.

13.2 states that operators should allow the driver a reasonable grace period to in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. The most reasonable interpretation is therefore that this grace period must apply equally to drivers that decide to stay and not only to those that decide to leave without accepting the "parking contract".

I agree that this section of the code can be interperated both ways, and needs clarifying. Reading the Code I was unsure whether the grace period would be allowed at the start if you decide to stay. I think the reason for this grace period is to prevent people who leave the car park, without deciding to stay, from being stung. It is therefore not intended for people who decide to stay, and I think it is reasonable to argue that it shouldn't be applied if you do.

In relation to the case you mentioned, it is exactly what happened with me. The case I argued was that the ANPR cameras weren't used consistently or transparently. If the ticket machine calculates the time based on payment, and issue the driver with an expiry time based on payment, then how on earth can it be considered consistent and transparent that the operator will calculate the time using ANPR cameras. I think this holds up regardless of what the signage says. I am still baffled at how the BPA have not recognised this non-compliance with the code. I have gone back to them with my complaint following my appeal success, and hope for clarification on this.

Sam_Lyons

This is the section of the Code that I argued had not been upheld due to the conflicting expiry times calculated by the ANPR camera and the ticket machines.

21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.

Redx

as you say , parking time is the time paid in order to park the car

grace periods are the times BEFORE and AFTER parking , so if the signs dont make it clear that the time starts and finishes from the ANPR times and what the ANPR data will be used for then they are failing the contract

the BPA should know better , and a judge is likely to agree that if somebody has paid to park and agreed to a parking contract, not trying to defraud anybody then that judge should find in favour of the consumer

kaytata_2

I would be interested to know whether POPLA accepted or rejected this appeal

Coupon-mad

Sam_Lyons wrote: »

Update on this.

I emailed the BPA with all the evidence to complain and get their judgment. Firstly, they said the grace period at the start of the parking is not applied if you chose to stay. Therefore, because I was 12 minutes over the 4 hour period, they said the PCN was issued correctly. That was fair enough.

However, the ticket machines didn't calculate the parking period based on entry to the carpark. I therefore argued they weren't using the ANPR cameras consistently or transparently as required in the BPA Code, and that we were issue with misleading information. Bizarrely, the BPA rejected this and maintained the PCN was issued correctly.

I appealed with POPLA anyway, in my own words and true to what happened, and the appeal was successful. ParkingEye did not challenge it. Which leads me to believe they were trying to profit from me in full knowledge they were acting unfairly. Nice company.

The OP told us he won, above.