Another ParkingEye Entrapment Zone

The_Slithy_Tove

After many years since I first got a parking charge and joined this forum (2011), another has finally come through the letter box. Not for me, though, but addressed to my wife. It's a pretty standard PE one from a Holiday Inn hotel. Holiday Inn seem to have fairly recently brought in PE to, ahem, "manage" their hotel car parks. It seems you have to pay, or if you are resident or visiting (and spend enough with them) you get your car exempted from paying.

All moot if you don't see what they claim is "adequate" signage, which it isn't. Once again, PE have created an entrapment area where there are no signs when you park. I have the photos now to prove it.

The driver didn't see the signage where they parked (because it wasn't there), so was unaware you need to pay or validate the car, and so picked up a parking charge after a visit for a business meeting.

Having so far done battle by email with the hotel (they have a specific email address for parking issues, which they claim is an appeals process before going to PE themselves), and also confronted the duty manager, to no avail, it looks like we're going to have to go with the standard, and time consuming appeals process. (One more card up my sleeve is an email to the CEO, which will include telling him how I will be cancelling my booking at a Holiday Inn next week when I'm away on business and staying at the Premier Inn instead.)

A question first for the ultra-experts:
I notice how the standard BPA appeal template has changed somewhat over time, and is majoring on DPA and the like. Is this really the approach now? In this case, the DPA angle is unlikely to fly, as they got the keeper details as no ticket was purchased. I understand the only objective is to get a POPLA code. Does this text still get you one from PE?

As this progresses, I believe inadequate signage will be key. Also it's a pay-per-hour car park, so that scuppers their Beavis precedent. And they claim "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or parking without a valid permit". That surely is a POFA fail, as they do not make it clear how the charge arose. And the former would be a breach of contract, while the latter would be trespass. Which are they claiming? Should they be called out on this at this stage?

Another interesting angle will be that PE have been contracted (it seems) by Holiday Inn, yet the hotels themselves are franchises. I wonder if there is a suitable chain of contracts all the way down the line from landowner to PE?

PCN for reference:
http://i63.tinypic.com/34qmjag.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/15mxu08.jpg

Fruitcake

The DPA idea is that if you win at PoPLA they should not have asked the DVLA for your keeper details. They didn't have reasonable cause because they messed up the process they are supposed to follow.
Part of the process is that they must belong to an ATA and abide by their rules.
One of the rules of the BPA CoP is adequate signage.

So, if you win an appeal on inadequate signage it means they didn't follow the BPA CoP and thus breached the DVLA KADOE contract. In other words, they didn't have reasonable cause.

The problem of course is convincing a judge.

However, people are more likely to succeed where the scam is operated on residential property where the victim has a lease/AST that trumps the scammers made up terms.
If you can show a judge there is nothing in your contract with the landowner concerning third party (parking scammers) adding on Ts and Cs, then you can show they knew, or should have known the lease/AST trumps anything they say.

To your other question, the BPA template will still get you a PoPLA code.

Have you left negative feedback about this scam on the hotel website? This should be done separately by everyone in your party.

The_Slithy_Tove

Fruitcake wrote: »

Have you left negative feedback about this scam on the hotel website? This should be done separately by everyone in your party.

Not yet, that is to come.

Meanwhile, before (or separately from) engaging with PE themselves, I plan to respond to the hotel thus:

Further to your unhelpful response to my requirement for you to cancel the Parking Charge I have received, you made a claim about the signage and how clear it is. Unfortunately for you, this is untrue.

May I draw your attention to the British Parking Association's (of which ParkingEye is a member) Code of Practice:

18.3 Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand. Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm.

Note the bit underlined. This means that from ANY parking space, there must be a sign visible with the parking terms. This is not the case. The four non-disabled spaces outside the front of the hotel, which is where the car was parked, have no signs which can be seen from those spaces. Go out there and check for yourself (I have photographic evidence). This means
(a) that ParkingEye are in breach of the Code of Practice, which I am sure is a condition of them operating in your car park and
(b) no contract can have been entered into by a driver parking in those spaces.
Since my car was parked in one of those spaces, this therefore applies. This is a very common practice by ParkingEye, to set up deliberate "entrapment zones" like these. Further, the terms and conditions are clearly NOT "easy to see, read and understand" as, when a sign can be found, they are in very small font on signs which are at least 7 feet up a pole. Any signage inside the hotel itself is entirely irrelevant when it comes to compliance with the Code of Practice, even if it were seen. None of those signs show any kind of conditions of parking, so do not form any kind of contract or form a licence to park.

Because ParkingEye are in breach of British Parking Association's Code of Practice, that probably makes them in breach of your contract with them (which I presume insists on compliance). But it also makes them in breach of the KADOE agreement with the DVLA by which they obtain the keeper details of vehicles. Their obtaining my details from the DVLA is thus a breach of the Data Protection Act (DPA). As the contracting party, this makes you jointly liable for the DPA breach. I believe the "going rate" in court for such a breach is in the region of £250-£750.

In addition, such signage that there is has no planning permission or advertising consent, both of which are required, making the scheme not just unlawful, but illegal. I also contend that the car park has probably not been reassessed for business rates, yet someone is now operating a profit-making business on it. Does your new manager know about the illegal system being operated?

Apart from the negative effect that such a parking scheme has on the reputation your hotel, which is only going to discourage me and anyone I talk to from using your facility, you are on legally very unsound ground with the charges being claimed. Therefore you have no choice but to cancel this charge, by which I mean instructing (not requesting) ParkingEye to cancel it. Or will you continue to treat genuine customers and users of your hotel in such contempt as you have so far demonstrated?

Who to send this to? The parking people at the hotel? The hotel's general manager? Or straight to the CEO (with suitable rewording)?

The_Slithy_Tove

Update: After sending the above to the hotel, all they did was say that they'd send it on to ParkingEye, which didn't fill me with hope.

Yet, today, in the post came a cancellation letter from ParkingEye :T

Not sure if the fact that the de-facto appeal came via the hotel, or whether PE looked at what I'd written and just put me in the "too hard to handle, knows what he's talking about" pile, and cut their losses there and then, but who cares.

Moral of the story is to be persistent, forceful, and batter both the PPC and the company who engaged them with strong arguments.

[Meanwhile, my negative TripAdvisor report was rejected as being too much of a rant rather than genuine feedback for future guests. So my further advice is, if posting on TripAdvisor, read their policies on acceptable reviews before posting.]

Half_way

Why do i get the feeling that the 'special' email/contact for the hotel with regards to parking will just re-direct to parking eye

Umkomaas

Well done on getting the cancellation.

Why not give the hotel (and PE) something to worry about as it's almost certain that no advertising consent will have been applied for by PE for the signage (a criminal offence) and you might like to remind the hotel of their joint and several liability for the (criminal) actions of their agents.

Also if their ANPR cameras are pole mounted they need planning permission, so they need to check all this lot out before they should be allowing PE anywhere near their customers. Remind them that customers will ultimately be pursuing the hotel for their losses and distress by joining them in with PE when DPA breach claims start to surface.

Here are a couple of Prankster blogs which highlight the 'rape and pillage' and 'gung ho' approach of PE - which could so easily blow up in the hotel's face.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.za/2016/03/parkingeye-and-planning-consent-or-lack.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.za/2016/12/parkingeye-employee-reveals-their-rape.html

Hopefully this will give the hotel a nasty dose of nervousness about their relationship, and PE a pile of work to do in explaining their position to the hotel and then applying for any relevant consents/permissions.

The_Slithy_Tove

Umkomaas wrote: »

Why not give the hotel (and PE) something to worry about as it's almost certain that no advertising consent will have been applied for by PE for the signage (a criminal offence) and you might like to remind the hotel of their joint and several liability for the (criminal) actions of their agents.

Also if their ANPR cameras are pole mounted they need planning permission, so they need to check all this lot out before they should be allowing PE anywhere near their customers. Remind them that customers will ultimately be pursuing the hotel for their losses and distress by joining them in with PE when DPA breach claims start to surface.

My "rant" above says all those things.

There's no planning permission for either signage nor ANPR cameras. I think a fairly safe extension to that will be that there is no advertising consent. I fully intend to make the council aware of this.

I will also be asking another bit of the council whether the rateable value for the hotel has been reassessed considering a money-making scheme is now operating in the car park, where it was not previously.

The hotel itself will lose out. It's always been a popular place for people to hold business meetings over a coffee. You now need to spend £10 per car to get free parking. Who's going to do that. My wife won't for a start, so they'll lose out on that business and any follow-on business they may pick up from people who liked what the saw when just going in for a coffee.

Umkomaas wrote: »

Remind them that customers will ultimately be pursuing the hotel for their losses and distress by joining them in with PE when DPA breach claims start to surface.

I've also been considering this approach. A cancellation would suggest they should never have issued the charge in the first place. While PE would brush off an LBA, I wonder what the Holiday Inn would make of it.

Umkomaas

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

My "rant" above says all those things.

There's no planning permission for either signage nor ANPR cameras. I think a fairly safe extension to that will be that there is no advertising consent. I fully intend to make the council aware of this.

I will also be asking another bit of the council whether the rateable value for the hotel has been reassessed considering a money-making scheme is now operating in the car park, where it was not previously.

The hotel itself will lose out. It's always been a popular place for people to hold business meetings over a coffee. You now need to spend £10 per car to get free parking. Who's going to do that. My wife won't for a start, so they'll lose out on that business and any follow-on business they may pick up from people who liked what the saw when just going in for a coffee.


I've also been considering this approach. A cancellation would suggest they should never have issued the charge in the first place. While PE would brush off an LBA, I wonder what the Holiday Inn would make of it.

While helping individuals fight off their individual parking charges is fine, fighting at the strategic level is much more satisfying and potentially more damaging to the PPC network than saving an individual £60 - £100. The potential then is for dozens of people not being charged anything in the first place.

Keep at 'em TST - and keep us updated.

The_Slithy_Tove

Let the fun begin:

To: planning@localauthority.gov.uk

Dear Sir,

It has come to my notice that a multitude of signs have appeared in the last few month in the car park at the Holiday Inn hotel <location redacted>, relating to so-called parking enforcement. I understand that such signage required planning permission. On looking at your planning web site, I cannot find any evidence that planning permission has been applied for with respect to these signs, or the ANPR cameras that have also been erected.

Furthermore, I also understand that it’s not just regular planning permission which is required for such signage, but advertising consent. As I am sure you know, Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 indicates that if anyone erects a car parking sign when advertisement consent is required, but doesn't obtain consent first, a criminal offence is committed.

I therefore would like you to investigate this without delay, and ensure that the signage is removed until such time as the relevant consent is received. I am sure I also don’t need to remind you that, unlike planning permission, advertising consent cannot be applied for retrospectively. Also to consider what other action you intend to take against Holiday Inn or their agents.

pould

This should also be an open and shut DPA case. PE have no planning or advertising permission so they don't meet BPA guidelines so they don't have a valid cause under the KADOE contract with the DVLA.

Send them a letter explaining this and demanding £1000. You could even do it as a letter before action.