ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice

Coupon-mad

You will have to email these comments to POPLA. Ask them to confirm the Assessor WILL take these comments into account, which would not fit in the Portal.

Evidence G
System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.

Was this so called evidence a ''white list look-up'' showing no matches for your VRN? Or was it a list of payments made at that car park (IMHO, it should be the latter). The former is no evidence ''that insufficient time was purchased'' at all, and usually has no location and/or no date on it, could be a mock up word document, invented from scratch.

I would change 'statutory' to 'BPA Code of Practice mandatory' here, because there is NO statutory minimum ten minutes relating to private land, only Councils, and I would add to your comments:

This sign would not however waive a driver's BPA Code of Practice mandatory [STRIKE]statutory[/STRIKE] right to a minimum 10 minute grace period [STRIKE]both before purchasing and[/STRIKE] after expiry of a free or paid parking period.

The period before paying is defined by the BPA as a separate time that the BPA's Kelvin Reynolds described in detail in a BPA article as an 'observation period', to drive in, park, read signs, decide whether to stay or leave and then to make payment at a machine.

This is separate from the end of parking 'grace period' and it is disingenuous of ParkingEye to pretend that a two minute 'observation period' on arrival, then a nine minute 'grace period' somehow exceeds the mandatory minimum 'grace period' at the end of any parking event, that the BPA formally agreed to amend in 13.4 of their CoP, in 2015, to at least ELEVEN minutes merely for the process of leaving a car park after expiry of paid-for time.



As for this (below) hahahahahahahahaha!!!!

The witness statement should be disregarded from ParkingEye's evidence as it states:

'The site is Weymouth Old Town (West)'

And is not relevant to this parking charge notice issued for Weymouth Old Town (East).

Djubb78

It is a Whitelist Lookup, I've tried to copy and paste it below but it doesn't include the borders of the table

Whitelist Lookup - DU02XRH
Whitelist Name - Weymouth Old Town (East) - Paid
Plate - DU02XRH
Description - Blank
Start Date/Time - 14/04/2017 10:55:00
End Date/Time - 14/04/2017 11:55:00
Input Date/Time - 14/04/2017 10:55:00
Duration - 1 hr 0 min

Coupon-mad

Ah OK, so it's one that mentions the payment made and date and location, so leave that bit out.

I would move the point about the Witness statement (West v East - two different locations - spell it out!) up to the top and cut out some of the waffle, because you should win on that alone. When I say waffle, I would remove this, as I never like points that say 'their sign clearly says' (you are almost arguing their side, not yours, here):

Sign Type 3 – The only real prominent sign is installed between the car parks 2 payment machines. This sign clearly states the following information which makes up the terms and conditions
1. This is a Pay & Display car park
2. Parking Tariff
3. Maximum stay of 24 hours
4. Please enter the full, correct vehicle registration into the Pay & Display machine when purchasing a ticket.
5. Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
6. Park only within marked bays
7. Blue badge holders only in marked bays – tariffs apply
8. Strictly no parking on double yellow lines

Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100

The driver complied with these terms and conditions, therefore no parking charge notice should have been issued.

Djubb78

I've deleted the part about sign type 3 as you've suggested. And moved the part about the witness statement to the top, adding some wording so it now says

'The witness statement should be disregarded from ParkingEye's evidence as it states:

'The site is Weymouth Old Town (West)'

And is not relevant to this parking charge notice issued for Weymouth Old Town (East). Two different locations – West v East!'

Regarding cutting out some of the waffle, would the following comments be better off being removed?

'System check/manual check identified breach of terms and conditions, prior to DVLA request (at some point between 14/04/2017 and 24/04/2017) – What check was carried out to identify alleged breach of terms and conditions? As ParkingEye history indicates Check undertaken to locate vehicle registration on paid parking system was only carried out on 11/05/2017.'

and

'History timeline refers to ParkingEye sending email or letters to Motorist, this is inaccurate as ParkingEye only have registered keepers details.'

Thanks for you help

Coupon-mad

Yes I would prune those out and concentrate on the comments that seem like they should win.

Djubb78

My POPLA appeal has now been assessed and a decision has been made. I've include the assessors response below.

Decision - Successful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant’s vehicle parked at Weymouth Old Town car park where the operator issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not allowed a sufficient grace period. He says that he is appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant states that the operator does not have the authority of the landowner to manage parking at the site. He says that the signage is not sufficient.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 10:53 and departing at 12:04 on 14 April 2017, as such the vehicle was at the site for 1 hour 11 minutes. The operator has also provided a copy of the whitelist lookup, which shows if the vehicle was registered at that car park on the day in question, along with any payments made. I can see that a one-hour parking period was purchased at 10:55 on the day. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage in place at the site showing the terms and conditions. They state, “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week” and “Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100”. POPLA is an evidence-based appeals service. All appeals are decided using the evidence and statements from the appellant and the parking operator, using the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice as guidance for an expectation of minimum standards. POPLA’s main responsibility is to determine whether a PCN was issued in accordance with the terms and conditions. The appellant has raised several grounds of appeal; however, my report will focus on the ground that the operator has not allowed the appellant a reasonable grace period as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice. Section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. Additionally, section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. The operator has provided evidence demonstrating that the appellant’s vehicle entered the site at 10:53, a one-hour parking period was purchased at 10:55 and the appellant left the site at 12:04, nine minutes after the parking period expired. From this I determine that the exceeded time spent at the site was nine minutes and that this time falls within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice. In conclusion, I determine that the exceeded time falls within the grace period specified in the BPA Code of Practice and as such, I can only determine that the operator issued the PCN incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

As the operator has been deemed to have issued the PCN incorrectly, does this give me reasonable grounds to make a claim for compensation for the distress and approx 20 hours I've had to spend fighting this PCN?

Redx

yes it does , because they failed to apply the BPA CoP clause #13 which they signed up to , so its a DPA breach

Djubb78

Also, thank you very much to everyone on the MSE forum (especially coupon-mad) who've contributed so much excellent information and advice to help me successfully fight this PCN. I was considering begrudgingly paying the PCN before I found this forum as I felt I had no other choice.

Djubb78

Thanks Redx, I've got a few questions regarding this:

How long do I have to make a claim for compensation?
Do I just send an LBC to the PCC and landowner?
Should I complain to the BPA?
Should I complain to the DVLA?

Thanks for your help

Redx

read what coupon mad and others have posted about it in other threads in this forum

its early days on this aspect , you have up to 6 years to do this