ParkingEye Charge - Two Saints Retail, Ormskirk

atwinny

link removed

Here's the case file they have sent me. Hopefully it works through that link

Coupon-mad

You may wish to redact the name and address and VRN from all that rubbish from Parking Eye...and I doubt very much that they would want to try to argue 11 minutes' in court when the minimum grace period is meant to be exactly that!

You are unlikely to change POPLA's mind now but it is worth trying, as they have sent you the evidence now (do POPLA know you didn't get it and are they allowing you time to comment now?). Have you alerted POPLA to the missing evidence pack?

You could say:


As there was a procedural error in POPLA making the above decision because I was not afforded the right to comment, these are my comments for the case to be revisited.

I ask at least that these comments are referred to another Assessor, because procedural errors were made by POPLA and I was not provided with the evidence pack beforehand.

- The evidence fails to show why they are issuing a PCN after eleven minutes, when the BPA Code of Practice sets a grace period at a MINIMUM (not maximum) of ten minutes which would not apply in a busy, multi-store car park like this medium-sized one, where the driver has to wend their way out, even if a driver is quick. The photos show pedestrians and various bays to drive around and a road at the exit, all of which take time to manoeuvre through and out

- In the original appeal it was pointed out that the BPA (Kelvin Reynolds in an official article) sets best practice to allow MORE than ten minutes when circumstances slow a driver down. It would never be reasonable to expect a driver to think that the signs mean they would have to leave the children alone in a car to go and feed a P&D machine at that point of loading and leaving, when they know they have only parked for an hour.

- ParkingEye are unreasonable in charging in 2017 for alleged eleven minute 'overstays' when the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting from 30th July 2015 included a formal agreement by the Board including BPA members, that the minimum grace period was to be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes'. A MINIMUM, not a maximum.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governance/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf

- the signs are headed 'parking tariffs apply' not 'total stay tariffs apply' so a driver cannot reasonably be expected to think the time to drive out is included. Eleven minutes is obviously not 'more than reasonable'(!) and POPLA should reconsider these ill-advised words from their Assessor.

- any wording about cars being timed from the point of entry off the road is not visible on those signs. The signage is complicated with different rules, different payment methods including pay by phone and a rule not to return so even a driver shopping for under an hour would have perfectly reasonably, spent 2 or 3 minutes finding a space then after locking the car it would take another 2 or 3 minutes to read the signs - at which point any circumspect driver would THEN look at their watch and enter the shop, resolving to leave within an hour.

- they would be unaware that the clock had started ticking ten minutes earlier. This cannot possibly be a fair term to issue PCNs purporting to have recorded the vehicle at a distance entrance and then the exit, when the BPA has a minimum of 10 (or 11, resolved since 2015) minutes as the grace period. ParkingEye are trying it on.

- the so-called Witness Statement (WS) does not even state who the company is that the signatory works for, if they do at all. The WS mentions two companies near the top (pre-typed) but neither are described as 'the landlord' and neither are named under the signature. The vague words: 'agent for the landlord' has no meaning whatsoever, to describe who this signatory is or which company they purport to work for (ParkingEye, who knows?).

- the WS purports to aver facts that have not yet occurred and are in the future, attempting to cover a date span of months ahead, being pre-signed. That is not a valid WS, which cannot lawfully attest to events in the future.

- this is no evidence at all that ParkingEye had the right to charge drivers £100 who actually only park for one hour, like this event, conduct which is in fact allowed on the site signage, plus a reasonable grace period to cover arrival and leaving.

- Finally, they have stated wrongly that ‘Evidence G’ shows ‘a system generated printout showing that the VRN does not appear on the date of the event’. Evidence G is nothing of the sort, it’s a blank (with no location nor even a date or time) white list look-up. This merely checks if a VRN is on an exempt list of staff vehicles - but where and when?

- For all I or the POPLA Assessor know this could be a search for my VRN at a Hotel in Scotland on Christmas Day 2014. Why did the POPLA Assessor believe this was any evidence at all?

POPLA's errors in procedure and the original decision:

- I was not provided with the evidence until now so was given no chance to rebut it earlier.

- POPLA have missed the fact that the purported ''White List look-up'' has no date or location, so is no evidence at all that there was no payment made. This is very difficult for a registered keeper to know either way, but impossible if POPLA are accepting undated white lists with no location.

- Yet POPLA's Assessor criticised MY evidence for having no date on it...why the different treatment of evidence in favour of the operator?

- POPLA's Assessor mistakenly stated that the appeal gave no special reason for being delayed for over ten minutes. Firstly, this is applying the wrong test. Ten minutes (or even the 2015 ''minimum 11 minutes'' set by the BPA) is NOT a maximum so clearly - by any valid assessment of the average man on the Clapham Omnibus - a mere eleven minutes all told in the entire car park is perfectly reasonable. It needs no special explanation - but I did explain.

- My first appeal DID cover this and it was shown in the operator's evidence pack and always has to be read as part of my appeal, by the POPLA assessor, to glean the facts and make a proper and just decision. My appeal DID mention the fact that the site has several retailers, is not small and that the driver would have had to have loaded shopping & a buggy away as well as strap children in before leaving.

- POPLA appear to have read the 'minimum ten minute grace period' in the BPA CoP as a maximum. This is wrong, yet the Assessor has decided that issuing a £100 PCN after an unproven and inexact (because ANPR is not synchronised to the minute at the 'in' and 'out' areas) sixty seconds is 'more than reasonable'. This cannot be deemed MORE than reasonable (really?) in a busy car park in the circumstances as described in the first appeal.

- Even the operator's own photos show it is a multi-retailer car park and whilst it is not an enormous retail park in area, neither is it very small nor particularly easy to drive round and exit - again, the operator's evidence shows that cars exit past pedestrians and then onto a roundabout and main road.

atwinny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You may wish to redact the name and address and VRN from all that rubbish from Parking Eye...and I doubt very much that they would want to try to argue 11 minutes' in court when the minimum grace period is meant to be exactly that!

You are unlikely to change POPLA's mind now but it is worth trying, as they have sent you the evidence now (do POPLA know you didn't get it and are they allowing you time to comment now?). Have you alerted POPLA to the missing evidence pack?

Thanks very much for that. I will email them back using what you have put.


They are allowing me until next Monday to reply back to them. I have told them I didn't receive the evidence pack which is why they have allowed me until next week to reply.


Thanks for your help

atwinny

This is starting to get really frustrating!!!


Here is POPLA's reply to my email to them:




Good morning,


Thank you for your recent telephone calls and emails.


I can see from your email that you have requested for a response from an assessor who has not yet corresponded with you regarding your appeal. I have never spoken to you before. As well as being a POPLA assessor myself, I am also a member of the POPLA complaints team and an accredited Quality Assurance checker.


Please be mindful that as POPLA is a one stage process, there is no opportunity to appeal against our decision. We will, however, ensure that the correct decision has been made. Only if a procedural error has occurred would we look to make any changes.


I can see from your email that you did not receive the operator’s case file and therefore could not provide your comments in relation to this case file. We emailed you on 10 April 2017 advising that the operator’s case file was available to view. While I appreciate you left a comment advising that not all seven attachments were visible, you did not specify which attachments you could not view.


Regardless, as you have now had the opportunity to view the case file, I am more than happy to review your comments.


Your particular concerns appear to be regarding the grace period applied by the parking operator. You state that the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that a “minimum of 10 minutes” must be applied at the end of every parking contract, and that this is not a maximum length of time.


This is correct; however, the only requirement set out in the Code is that parking operators apply a 10 minute grace period. There is no requirement for operators to apply a longer grace period. It is simply down to the individual parking operator’s discretion as to whether it believes a longer grace period is required or is necessary.


In this instance, all motorists are permitted to park on site for free for up to one hour. Any time spent on site which exceeds an hour must be paid for. On 6 March 2017, the driver entered the car park at 11:55 and exited at 13:07. As such, the vehicle remained on site for one hour and 12 minutes, therefore, as the driver had chosen to exceed the one hour free stay period, parking tariffs were applicable. As the operator could not locate a valid payment for the vehicle, it subsequently issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).


I appreciate your comments that you felt the operator could have applied a longer grace period; however, when assessing whether or not we feel the operator applied a reasonable grace period, we would look at the reason for why the driver was delayed in exiting the site.


Despite claiming the contrary, at no point did you explain why the driver was delayed in exiting from the site. In your grounds for appeal, you spoke about the “average driver” having to “unstrap any children, buggy, bags” but you did not talk about the specific circumstances on the date in question.


As such, your assessor was correct in stating that the operator complied with the requirements of the BPA Code of Practice in relation to grace periods.


I can see from your email that you are also unhappy with the assessor’s wording when she said she felt the length of time the vehicle remained on site was “more than reasonable” for the driver to have read and accepted the terms and conditions of parking. I apologise if you were unhappy with this wording; however, I am satisfied that this was simply a judgement call made by the assessor.


I can also see that you believe the signed witness statement is incorrect and that you do not believe the operator has the relevant authority from the landowner to issue and pursue PCNs as a result. Having reviewed the witness statement myself, I am satisfied that this meets the requirements set out in Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice – as did your assessor.


Additionally, you believe that the system print out provided by the operator is inconclusive and may not be in relation to the Two Saints car park in Ormskirk. You state the operator may have provided a system print out for “a hotel in Scotland on Christmas Day in 2014”. While I appreciate your concerns, we work on the basis that neither party has provided false evidence. If a valid payment had been made, the system print out would have reflected this; however, you have stated that the driver of the vehicle did not enter into a contract, so the assessor was correct in advising that no valid payment was made for the additional parking time on site.


Finally, you believe that the signage displayed on site is ambiguous as it does not clearly state that after the one hour free stay period, parking tariffs apply. While I acknowledge this point, I would have to disagree. The signage clearly states “1 hour free stay. Tariffs apply thereafter”. While I appreciate your point that the entrance signage does not stipulate this very point, the entrance sign does state “Tariff payable at machine or by phone” and advises motorists to “see signage in car park for terns & conditions”. It was the driver’s responsibility to do this.


While I can understand that it is disappointing and even frustrating when an appeal results in an outcome that you were not hoping for, our role as an impartial appeals service means that quite simply, we must base our decisions upon the factual evidence presented to us.


I am satisfied that this has been done in your appeal and, as such, there will be no change to the outcome of our decision.
Kind regards,

Emily Chriscoli
POPLA Complaints



****************************


In terms of this comment:
"We emailed you on 10 April 2017 advising that the operator’s case file was available to view. While I appreciate you left a comment advising that not all seven attachments were visible, you did not specify which attachments you could not view. "


I received an email from POPLA on 10th April saying:




Your parking charge appeal against Parking Eye Ltd.


Parking Eye Ltd has now uploaded its evidence via our portal. This is now available for you to view by clicking here.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by Parking Eye Ltd.


Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.


Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for assessment.


If you have any issues with the evidence uploaded by Parking Eye Ltd such as being unable to view it online, please contact POPLA immediately so that we can look to rectify this as soon as possible.


Yours Sincerely,
POPLA Team






I logged into their portal and it said I had received 7 attachments which where not visable. When clicking into either of the 7 attachments it brought up pdf files that where is a non readable format. As I was not able to view them, I replied back on their portal saying "all 7 attachments are not visible" as it stated in their email saying if you can't view the evidence, to let us know.



Surely that's clear in saying I can't view the attachments and therefore wouldn't be able to review what they have sent? They are saying I didn't tell them which attachments I could not view?

Since then, as I've explained, they went ahead and made a decision on my case without reading my comments stating I couldn't see their evidence. Surely this is a procedural error as they should not have made a judgement on my case without me seeing the case files which I explained I couldn't see.


Anyway, how do I tackle this next? What do I do? This is really starting to frustrate me now!


Thanks again for the help.

atwinny

BUMP.


Any help would be appreciated with this. Thanks

Umkomaas

I don't think POPLA is going to change its mind now, whatever else you write back with. Support from your MP might help (they will need your support on 8th June, don't forget).

Otherwise it's a case of seeing what PE do next. If it does go to court, hopefully you will have a judge who will give you a more favourable decision than POPLA.

I've not been back through the whole thread, but have you complained to the landowner yet?

atwinny

Umkomaas wrote: »

I don't think POPLA is going to change their mind now, whatever else you write back with. Support from your MP might help (they will need your support on 8th June, don't forget).

Otherwise it's a case of seeing what PE do next. If it does go to court, hopefully you will have a judge who will give you a more favourable decision than POPLA.

I've not been back through the whole thread, but have you complained to the landowner yet?

No - should have I complained?


What happens next then? Do I just sit back and wait for them to contact me?

Umkomaas

atwinny wrote: »

No - should have I complained?


What happens next then? Do I just sit back and wait for them to contact me?

Well so many people have had their tickets cancelled by complaining to landowners up and down the country. It might work for you, but not much of this stuff is predictable.

It's PE's move next, nothing you can do. But if you think that sitting back with a potential court case on your hands is the right way to go about it, who am I to say?

But if it was me, I'd be studying as many threads as possible on here of PE cases that have gone to court (wherever in the country) and determining what strategies have worked for successful defences.

You could start by reading the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 which explains the entire court process and gives examples of defences used by others (not necessarily against PE, but the general gist of those will help you should PE issue court papers.

The more you are ready for the possibility, the better you will handle things.

didactosaurus

Hi - just to say I'm in the same boat, mine was for 1hr 10 mins on Xmas eve!

POPLA rejected the appeal with no consideration of the grace period. I called and they said 'it depends how you use that period of time'.

My letter from POPLA actually states 'Successful' at the top, but the body of the letter clearly states it was unsuccessful.

Have received a letter before county court claim (LBCCC) dated 6th July giving 14 days to pay £100.

Whilst I understand we don't want to be paying these unscrupulous, predatory scumbags a penny, if I just paid the original £60 and told them I'm not paying a penny more, would they be likely to pursue me for the £40 plus costs? And would me having paid the £60 be an admission of my acceptance of the legitimacy of their charge and thus leave me open to it?

Like many people I have a family and busy career, I've started to read through all the links and posts and it looks like I could spend hours and hours preparing the required defence - I don't have the time!

Coupon-mad

if I just paid the original £60 and told them I'm not paying a penny more, would they be likely to pursue me for the £40 plus costs?

Yes. So don't do that.

It doesn't have to take hours to copy another ParkingEye 'no grace period' defence, there's one here this week in the first few pages, and DOZENS can be found in seconds with a carefully-chosen keyword search (e.g. ParkingEye defence grace period). You could copy and draft a defence in an afternoon, easily, if you need to. BUT ParkingEye can be seen off with some email tennis, so that's your next step in the dispute.

At this stage I recommend ROBUSTLY replying by email to that LBCCC telling them the sort of thing that was in this person's winning first appeal that saw off another similar scam ticket (from Smart Parking in this case):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72688959#Comment_72688959

Email ParkingEye assertively using that wording but with a forceful ending, absolutely refuting that they have any cause of action and stating that they have disregarded their own Code of Practice:

enforcement@parkingeye.co.uk


You will need to come back and start your OWN thread please, when you get various replies from PE, just to show us your next planned reply. Tie them up in an email exchange making it clear you are no pushover and a 10 minute grace period means just that.

NO REPLY HERE PLEASE, IT'S NOT YOUR THREAD, IT'S AN OLDER ONE.