ParkingEye and Blue Badge

marganne

It came from an appeal that was won in October 2016. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place for the templates or else I am not understanding the whole appeal procedure. I thought I was in the right place. I am finding this all exceptionally stressful

Coupon-mad

It may have been one that was lucky to win/was written much earlier and finally won.

Don't copy an appeal. Copy the templates in 'POPLA Decisions' - you are not looking for an appeal that won or following links, you are looking for my posts a month ago, three pages back (or so) in POPLA Decisions. You can copy the templates.

I rarely post in that thread so I can't understand how it can be hard to find my posts in late September in a particular thread? Stop reading other stuff, just look back to September on that thread...

marganne

Hopefully this is correct as per template dated: Oct.

ParkingEye
P.O Box 565
Chorley
PR6 6HT

Dear Sir/Madam,

POPLA APPEAL - code xxxxxxxxxx

As the registered keeper of the above vehicle, I wish to appeal the parking charge notice ParkingEye issued against it. I contend I am not liable for the parking charge, based on the following grounds, which are explained further below:
1) The two BPA 'Grace Periods' either side of paid-for time were not properly applied.
2) The Landowner Contract must evidence the definition of the services - the Grace Period is believed to be 15 minutes.
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible before parking.
4) The signs fail to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, breach of the BPA CoP, the CRA & the CPUTRs.
2) The Landowner Contract must evidence the definition of the services and it is believed the Grace Period in the contract is 15 minutes.

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract - including the times/days of operation and the landowner grace period (which may be longer than set out in the BPA CoP) - is key evidence to define what this operator is/is not authorised to do.
Further, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, it cannot be assumed that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).
Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, especially as ParkingEye use copied/pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand, the VRN nor even the site rules, operating hours, charges, exemptions and grace period.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. I put this operator to strict proof, to demonstrate full compliance with Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP, which defines the bare minimum mandatory requirements:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Further, I reasonably believe that the Grace Period at this Aire street car park is likely to match that of comparable sites, including the Fistral beach site that ParkingEye used to ruin before their contract 'ended'. My evidence for believing that the landowner agreement is hiding a longer Grace Period is this article about that other similar car park, where it is stated that they allow a full 20 minutes before enforcement:
''Visiting vehicles have a 20-minute grace period when they enter and leave the car park before having to buy a ticket. If they go past that timeframe they will receive a £90 fine in the post. This also applies to people who buy a ticket and exceed their time by 20 minutes from when they enter and leave the car park. [...] “If a driver decided to stay then for example if you take five minutes to buy the ticket they will have 15 minutes past their ticket deadline to leave the car park.''
A reasonable interpretation, since this operator uses template contracts and was operating at Tower Road at the same time as they used to operate at Fistral Beach down the road, is that this landowner contract also includes a 20 minute Grace Period and ParkingEye are put to strict proof to the contrary.
3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible before parking
Although ParkingEye is aware that the BPA CoP requires that terms on car park entrance signs must be clearly readable without a driver having to turn away from the road ahead, based on my research I have good reason to believe that the signs in this particular car park were not sufficiently clear to give proper notice to the driver. I also contend that there was no agreement on the 'parking charge' at all because the signs in the car park itself are sparsely positioned and the tariffs are the only prominent sums in large lettering, drawn to a driver's attention when standing at the pay & display machine.
I have seen no site map and if one is produced in evidence I contend that it is not an up-to-date record of the current lack of signage around all bay areas. There are no signs at all along full runs of bays here so a driver can park and pay at the machine and never learn of £100 risk.
ParkingEye have failed to evidence that the driver was 'bound to' have seen the contract terms of the £100 charge itself. In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and brief and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
4) The signs fail to warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for, breaching the BPA CoP and the CRA and the CPUTRs.
Paragraph 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as they do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
These signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed notify the driver what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.
Specifically missing (or otherwise illegible, buried in small print) is the vital information that the driver's arrival time would be calculated from a point in time on the road outside/at the boundary of the car park. It is not at all clear that the cameras are not for security but are there in order to calculate 'total stay' for the purpose of generating parking charges for profit of the operator.
In fact, any reasonable driver would believe that they are authorised to park and rely upon the time on the printed receipt for paying & displaying and that the contract begins when the coins go into the machine and consideration flows between the parties. The time before that is not parking time but a mere 'invitation to treat'; a period that only starts to be deemed a contract after the signs have been read and the driver decides to stay.
This is the normal, accepted meaning of a 'parking restriction', which would never include the time outside on the road, nor when driving slowly round pedestrians with surfboards nor the time at the end, queuing to exit.
In circumstances where the terms of a notice are not negotiable (as is the case with the car park signage, which is a take-it-or-leave-it contract) and where there is any ambiguity or contradiction in those terms, the rule of contra proferentem shall apply against the party responsible for writing those terms. This is confirmed within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 including: Paragraph 68: 'Requirement for Transparency:
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible'.
and Paragraph 69: 'Contract terms that may have different meanings: (1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.'
I contend that the words 'total stay' conflict with the words 'parking tariffs' and the most favourable interpretation of that conflict and ambiguity, as drafted on the signs, is that the driver is paying a tariff to PARK. The driver could never guess that they are paying a tariff that is somehow back-timed to include a secret timing when the clock started (unbeknown to drivers) from their arrival in moving traffic from the road. Are drivers here meant to be psychic and look at their watch as they drive off the road? If they are then this must be transparently stated at that point, at the entrance.
Withholding material information from a consumer regarding the 'time when the clock starts ticking' and the commercial (not security) purpose of the ANPR cameras would be considered an unfair term under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs) because the operator 'fails to identify its commercial intent':
Misleading omissions: 6.—(1) ''A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—
(a) the commercial practice omits material information,
(b) the commercial practice hides material information,
(c ) the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or
(d) the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context, and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.''
I believe that this charge is unrecoverable from myself as keeper, due to all or any of the above appeal points.
Additional circumstances – The picture shown on your letter shows the time the car entered Aire street and NOT the time shown on parking ticket. The picture also clearly shows a “Blue Disabled Badge” displayed in the windscreen, Blue Badge supplied. There are no disabled parking bays in Aire Street. As you will be able to see from the CCTV cameras focused upon the payment machines, the driver attempted to key in the registration to pay for the parking charge several times on the meters located to Aire Street Leeds. The driver of the vehicle also drove to a second payment meter located at the far side of the car park on finding it would not accept the coinage when they tried to pay, the driver then returned to the payment meter again located by the entrance to Aire Street Leeds. The driver attempted to key in the registration of the vehicle on both machines several times as can clearly be seen by the CCTV cameras located above the machines. As can be seen on the CCTV footage, the driver and another driver of a different vehicle both attempted to make payments to which the machines would not accept and simply returned to its original screen. It is not being disputed that the vehicle exceeded the 5 hour free stay however it is being disputed that a payment could not be made due to a fault with your machinery. The driver also attempted several times to phone the number given to purchase extra parking time. The system kept asking for “Reference number on my letter”! You also say that extra parking time can be purchased via machine, it cannot, as it would not accept information! The machine instantly took the money (with no change given!) A ticket WAS purchased for the adquate amount of time the vehicle was parked in Aire Street parking. Due to the inconsiderate parking of other drivers. The driver had considerable trouble attempting to leave the car park

This concludes my POPLA appeal.
Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Hi Marganne,

Keep calm and wait - I will re-write it for you.

BUT I am trying to understand one thing about what happened:

You said that the car left and the P&D ticket was still not expired.

But you also said you and another driver tried to pay more, to top up your parking, and the machine wasn't working. I don't understand when that was? If you had a P&D ticket that was unexpired why & at what point were you trying to top up? Do you see what I mean?

Also, you said that you DROVE between the two machines and re-parked before trying the second machine, then DROVE back to the first machine, within the car park. Was that right?

When was this difficulty with the machine, was it all when you first arrived and took 50 minutes or more? Or was there an issue later and your P&D ticket had actually expired?

It seems you were on site for 5 hours 50 minutes - did you only pay for 5 hours?

Guys_Dad

If your ticket was still valid when you left, then how does the grace period at the end of parking apply?

I think you are in the dark till you have their claimed ticket hours and timings paid.

marganne

When I returned to my car there was still 17 minutes of parking within the time limit....The P&D machines were at the opposite ends of the car park (waste land).
I have mobility problems, which is why I parked in Aire street as the sign displayed disabled parking bays. I drove between the two machines as that was the fastest way, and yes the machines are in the same car park.
The first problem was in trying to purchase P&D ticket. Three attempts were made to input registration, then tried to purchase 5 hours parking. Machine kept rejecting coins. Same thing happened with the other driver. The other driver kindly offered to exchange my coins as he had to do the same for himself. Whilst he was gone I tried phoning the number PE supplied for booking extra parking time. It was an automated call and kept asking me for the reference number at the top of the letter! After two attempts I gave up. The other driver returned and we both tried to pay for 5+ hours. I put £7 in the machine, the ticket supplied was for 5 hours only. There were no instructions what so ever as to how extra time could be purchased. In fact the machine says put in your money and follow instructions! (Big joke). That all in all took about 25-30 minutes.
The other issue was trying to leave the car park. As I previously stated there was still about 17 minutes valid parking on my ticket when I got back to my car. Besides there not being ANY disabled parking bays, it is an unmanned unmarked bit of land. My car was blocked. With a bit of manouvering I could have got my car out. The car next to me was ticketed to leave at 1730 so I waited.
I am 68 years old, I have terminal Cancer and Arthritis plus other medical issues which is why I looked for somewhere that offered disabled parking.
I was so shocked when this ticket came through I got my son to go back to Aire street car park and take photographs of the signage and ticket machines. I have tried to up load them but they won't seem to paste on this site.

Coupon-mad

Can you show us those photos by hosting them on tinypic or Photobucket (both are free) or Dropbox, then changing the URL to hxxp (instead of http) in case you are not yet allowed to post links which depends upon your post count. With 21 posts you might now be able to post a link.

I will re-write your POPLA appeal now I understand what occurred. It is good that you moved your car because this is not one 'single period of parking', it is two! I'll cover all that in the POPLA appeal.

Can you try those photos again please?

marganne

Coupon-mad

Oooh, can't see those, not sure why not.

marganne

I hope these photo's download properly.