Reducing charge by amount paid

simmotech

This is what I have so far.

Since my last email, I have taken advice and have been informed of the following:-
1) It has been confirmed that Parking Eye can cancel the Penalty at *any* time. The third party they mention is completely irrelevant.
2) Parking Eye are the Agent of IBIS Hotels. They work for you and if you have instructed them to cancel a Penalty Notice, they must surely do that.
3) Parking Eye, being serial litigators, will almost certainly take this to court.
It follows that IBIS Hotels is the principal and therefore potentially jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents.
4) I feel strongly enough about this that I *will* defend this in court if a cancellation is not forthcoming and Parking Eye persist with litigation.
Unfortunately, that means IBIS Hotels will also need to be included as a witness that they do not support their agent in this matter.

I can imagine that you personally would prefer not to be included in this matter, so can I suggest it is passed to the IBIS legal team for them to deal with.

beamerguy

A hard hitting response which will get a reaction

I would leave out

"I can imagine that you personally would prefer not to be included in this matter, so can I suggest it is passed to the IBIS legal team for them to deal with."

Let them work it out for themselves

Half_way

Add in that Staff from the hotel may be called as witness, and the legal team should look into this as a matter of urgency

simmotech

When the appeal was rejected by POPLA, sent something to their complaint email address:
What a waste of time – your reviewer didn’t understand the concept of ‘parking’ and missed other parts of the appeal too.


I wasn't expected a reply but got one saying they were happy that everything I raised had been covered correctly so I am about to send this email (definitely not expecting a reply to this!) just to vent:


>>Please note, POPLA is a one stage appeals process, the decision made is final and will not change.
Understood, but you (POPLA) have still ignored evidence and have still misdirected yourself by making up rules that don’t exist and are contrary to the Guidelines you purport to follow.
So I may as well point out your shortcomings so hopefully the next victim might get a better deal.

>>As the site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras then your time begins upon entry.
No it doesn’t. Time on site is *not* the same as parking time (see 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014)).
And trying to do it that way exclusively is plain stupid – suppose there was a queue on exit or finding a space.

Ten minutes on exit is allowed for – that is not parking time.
Time for entry and reading the terms and conditions must be allowed for – that also is not parking time.
See 18.5 of your BPA code of practise v6 which clearly “..they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions *before* they enter into the contract with you” (my emphasis) so the time *cannot* be said start from the APNR entry time.

The notices do not mention *anywhere* that Parking Time is defined as ANPR Start/Exit times (because they aren’t and cannot be).
So the “reasonable, consistent and transparent” requirement in 21.1 is broken;

Your *erroneous* assumption has therefore killed the appeal.

>>“By either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal …”
It is *not* clear. There are three options there and they should have identified the *one* that actually applied.
We initially thought we had typed in the car reg. wrong and *wasted* the initial informal appeal asking what the problem actually was.
It should also include *why*. It should have included the fact that a payment for £13 had been made but was deemed insufficient.

It could easily have done that on the terminal too – any other reasonable car park (e.g. Gade, Watford, also ANPR controlled) only prints a ticket when sufficient money has been paid.
(And what happened to that £13 paid? – they have deemed the parking unauthorised but not returned the tariff paid or offered to offset it against the PCN).
Not even an attempt to be ‘reasonable’ – just fleece the customer for as much as possible regardless of their honest intentions.

You also *completely ignored* my evidence that the payment machine had changed and the extra time was getting change because it no longer takes card *as it has done previously*. The signs do not say that.
(18.11 BPA – “…consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.”
Paying by telephone was not an option in this case.
And I note that the signage says “If for any reason you are unable to pay by phone, please purchase a ticket from a payment machine to avoid the possibility of receiving a Parking Charge” (my emphasis)
“a” ticket? Well not only did we buy “a” ticket but we also paid the correct amount for our time parked and still got shafted.

You also *completely ignored* my evidence that IBIS Hotels – the owner of the site– had told them to *cancel* the ticket.
In fact, Parking Eye *lied* to IBIS Hotels by saying that a “*third party decision maker*” (presumably you) was assessing the Notice and that it was now “*out of their hands*”.
Parking Eye can cancel a Notice at any time.

I stand by my complaint.

Coupon-mad

so the eleven minute defence doesn't wash - 10 minutes is the maximum.

No, it's the MINIMUM. Look what the CoP says!

Clearly 11 minutes is OK when the CoP insists on a MINIMUM of ten minutes grace.