Parking Eye POPLA

Baggiestan

My wife has received a PCN from parking eye for using a town centre car park 3 days before xmas,not disbuting she used car park she was on there for 16 mins but at no stage did she park her car or get out of her car just kept going round looking for spaces but because we couldn't park we then left the car park,Parking Eye have turned down the appeal and have given us a POPLA number,is it worth going down the POPLA route and appealing or should we just bite the bullet,
Regards

Coupon-mad

The NEWBIES thread covers this in post #3, with templates for POPLA stage. No thread tells you to pay. Not a single one.

What happened when you complained first, to the Store Manager(s) and the site owner/agent? Do that before POPLA.

Redx

yes , study the popla templates in the NEWBIES sticky thread , especially grace periods

also study the fact that a court case won by ivor pecheque a few years ago won at Altrincham court due to the same issues , so can be used as part of any appeal or defence, parking prankster blogged about it and the thread was on here too

PE monitor time on site , not "parking time"

Baggiestan

Just had confirmation from POPLA.appeal succesful.
Thank you to all for your advice.
:j

Baggiestan

The decision below if it is of use to anyone.

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant states the date of the alleged parking contravention was three days before Christmas and it was very busy. The appellant states there were hardly any parking spaces. The appellant states the driver could not park and left the site to find alternative parking. The appellant has raised grace periods. The appellant states it took a long time to go around the site and exit the site due to traffic. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the PCN was issued correctly. The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle **** *** entering the site at 13:54, exiting at 14:10; the period of stay was 16 minutes. Section 13.1 of The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decided not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice”. After reviewing the evidence provided, I can see that the date of the alleged parking contravention was the 22 December 2016. This is three days before Christmas at 13:54 therefore, I am satisfied that it would have been busy on the site. Furthermore, the operator has provided a site map which shows the site is large. Based upon the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the driver would have entered the site in traffic due to the time of year; and was unable to locate a parking space. As the driver could not park they left the site. As such, I am satisfied that 16 minutes is a reasonable grace period. Therefore, I conclude the PCN was issued incorrectly.

The_Deep

Parking Eye have turned down the appeal ... the mind boggles..


This is a classic case of breaching the provisions of the DPA by continuing to progress this case. Warn them that, unless they cancel this charge forthwith, you will take them to court for misuse of your data. Also read this.


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

Coupon-mad

Baggiestan wrote: »

The decision below if it is of use to anyone.

In this case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012), as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant.

The appellant states the date of the alleged parking contravention was three days before Christmas and it was very busy. The appellant states there were hardly any parking spaces.

The appellant states the driver could not park and left the site to find alternative parking. The appellant has raised grace periods. The appellant states it took a long time to go around the site and exit the site due to traffic. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof lies with the operator to provide POPLA with clear, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the PCN was issued correctly.

The site operates Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, the operator has provided photographic images of the appellant’s vehicle **** *** entering the site at 13:54, exiting at 14:10; the period of stay was 16 minutes. Section 13.1 of The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states “Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decided not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice”.

After reviewing the evidence provided, I can see that the date of the alleged parking contravention was the 22 December 2016. This is three days before Christmas at 13:54 therefore, I am satisfied that it would have been busy on the site. Furthermore, the operator has provided a site map which shows the site is large.

Based upon the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the driver would have entered the site in traffic due to the time of year; and was unable to locate a parking space. As the driver could not park they left the site.

As such, I am satisfied that 16 minutes is a reasonable grace period. Therefore, I conclude the PCN was issued incorrectly.

Thanks for posting again and well done!

Nice to read a sensible decision taking into account that the car would have arrived 'in traffic' and the car park is large and it was 3 days before Christmas.