Tower road Newquay

msa123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Were both PCNs received by day 15 from the parking event, and do they both have the paragraph on the back about 'POFA 2012' and 29 days to keeper liability?

Just checking neither of you has a 'non-POFA' version, which would be good if you did.

Yes unfortunately both were received within a week and have the paragraph about POFA 2012 and 29 days to keeper liability.

msa123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Finally, you need to both log in and see what the PE website says about the overstay minutes - does it tell you how many minutes elapsed before the PDT was purchased in your case, and also how many minutes they are alleging formed the grace period at the end? If so, it helps you put more of a personalised argument into your grace periods point which IMHO, is vital. The Assessor needs to understand why in this car park at this time of year, on this busy sunny day, cars might have needed xx minutes before paying and xx minutes queuing, before they could rejoin that main road.

The person with the '0 minutes paid for' one also needs a bit more, because I think they won't see anything useful when they log into PE's evidence page about their ticket. It will look like they didn't pay at all and that is wrong, so they need an extra appeal point explaining that they did pay, and PE have failed to carry out reasonable checks for a VRN that resembles theirs, and merely producing a 'white list look up' for the exact VRN will NOT be helpful or a fair business practice, and will mislead POPLA, an should be rejected as no evidence at all.

The appellant in that case should call for a full printout either side of YOUR payment, with other VRNs redacted, showing the VRN that most resembles theirs, because until this point PE have not taken any steps to show they have even carried out their much-vaunted 19 point checks, designed to avoid unfair PCN issue for a mere keypad error. An error which may not even be the fault of the driver and could be due to sun-faded keys or faulty keys in their VRN entry system.

And I think that person could even attach a Witness Statement from you, confirming that you are another appellant (POPLA code xxxxxxxxxx) also caught out by this scam on the same day/same time, and that you can confirm as fact that the driver of VRN xxxx xxx did pay for an hour's parking and did key in their VRN, one minute before (or one minute after) your own VRN which is xxxx xxx, therefore you are not only witness to payment being made, and VRN being keyed in, but you are also pinpointing the time of payment for your friend in order to enable ParkingEye to revisit the payments and find the 1 hour payment that immediately (preceded, or followed, as the case may be - you will know!) your payment for VRN xxxx xxx.

Your WS to help his/her case, needs to be signed and dated and clear about the above, the time and the facts.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Just re checked the evidence on their site, it doesn't show at what time the ticket was bought so no way of saying exactly how long was spent before and after the time on the ticket.

This is what the website shows:

Stay Duration
1 hours 17 minutes
Allowed Duration
0 hours 0 minutes
Paid Duration
1 hours 0 minutes (£1.50)

and for the second one

Stay Duration
1 hours 17 minutes
Allowed Duration
0 hours 0 minutes
Paid Duration
0 hours 0 minutes

How would I add in about the time taken before and after, not knowing the exact number of minutes taken? Is my only option to state 10 mins should be allowed before paying and a minimum of 10 after, therefore 20/21 mins total at a minimum is reasonable?

Also regarding the witness statement will I be able to submit 2 documents to POPLA. ie the appeal and the witness statement separately, or should I add the statement at end of the appeal and send as one.

nosferatu1001

I believe you can upload multiple documents. If it doesnt let you just scan i nthe WS and append to the PDF appeal.

msa123

Re draft of point one - Grace periods. New text added in blue and removed the part suggested.

1. No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

This matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere 17 minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The paid for parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the parking ticket was purchased or at which it expired.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "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."

Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “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.”
For the avoidance of doubt, the second 'grace' period of at least ten minutes (not a maximum, but a minimum) is in addition to the separate, first grace/observation period that must be allowed to allow the time taken to arrive, find a parking bay, lock the car and go over to any machine to read & observe the signage terms, before paying.

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period by only 17 minutes.

ParkingEye have failed to inform me of the amount of time spent prior to the driver purchasing the ticket and the time spent after the paid for period ended. I object to the unclear information in the PCN and reserve the right to comment when PE finally show the timings transparently.

By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

In this case there was nothing on the signs at the entrance or anywhere seen, that informed the driver that the timing could possibly start at the point of entry. The driver had no idea; nor does the Pay and Display machine give people any information to suggest that the time on the printed ticket is actually wrong and misleading. Surely this is a misleading business practice, any reasonable driver would expect the time to start when the ticket is printed (which is the point that the contract is effected) and rely upon their hour expiring when the receipt says - anything else is perverse and a twisted interpretation of contract law.
It must be noted that upon leaving the car park there were delays caused by pedestrians with surf boards and also turning/parking cars. The driver also had to give way to those cars newly arriving as the car park route narrows as you pass parked cars on both sides, then we had to queue for a couple of minutes at the exit until we could rejoin the main road (which is extremely busy, being the route to Fistral Beach).

It is noted that the 'exit' ANPR camera records the VRN only when at the very front/actually exiting onto the road, despite the fact this is a main road where a car cannot possibly turn straight out immediately even if there is no queue (which there was).

It is clear from the above that ParkingEye have failed to allow the mandatory MINIMUM Grace Period set out in the BPA Code of Practice. Adequate time must be allowed and this would differ from site to site, allowing for the issues I have mentioned above which are specific to a busy beach car park adjacent to a main road, where a car can't just leave within seconds without ploughing into pedestrians or other cars!

msa123

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The person with the '0 minutes paid for' one also needs a bit more, because I think they won't see anything useful when they log into PE's evidence page about their ticket. It will look like they didn't pay at all and that is wrong, so they need an extra appeal point explaining that they did pay, and PE have failed to carry out reasonable checks for a VRN that resembles theirs, and merely producing a 'white list look up' for the exact VRN will NOT be helpful or a fair business practice, and will mislead POPLA, an should be rejected as no evidence at all.

The appellant in that case should call for a full printout either side of YOUR payment, with other VRNs redacted, showing the VRN that most resembles theirs, because until this point PE have not taken any steps to show they have even carried out their much-vaunted 19 point checks, designed to avoid unfair PCN issue for a mere keypad error. An error which may not even be the fault of the driver and could be due to sun-faded keys or faulty keys in their VRN entry system.

Is the below sufficient as the additional point. What is a suitable title for this point?

Although PE have not acknowledged the payment on their evidence page, the driver confirms that parking was definitely paid for, for a period of 1 hour. PE have failed to carry out reasonable checks for a VRN that resembles mine. Merely producing a ‘white list look up’ for the exact VRN will NOT be helpful and is not fair business practice, and will mislead POPLA, and should be rejected as no evidence at all.

I call on PE to provide a full printout either side of payment for my son’s vehicle xxxx xxx (also currently appealing the same charge POPLA ref: xxxxxxxxxx) with other VRNs redacted, showing the VRN which most resembles mine, because until this point PE have not taken any steps to show they have even carried out their much-vaunted 19 point checks, designed to avoid unfair PCN issue for a mere keypad error. An error which may not even be the fault of the driver and could be due to sun-faded keys or faulty keys in their VRN entry system.

Umkomaas

Your Grace Period additions look good to me.

You need to decide/determine whether it's Kevin or Kelvin Reynolds. You've used both at various points!

msa123

Umkomaas wrote: »

Your Grace Period additions look good to me.

You need to decide/determine whether it's Kevin or Kelvin Reynolds. You've used both at various points!

Thanks, now amended

msa123

msa123 wrote: »

Is the below sufficient as the additional point. What is a suitable title for this point?

Although PE have not acknowledged the payment on their evidence page, the driver confirms that parking was definitely paid for, for a period of 1 hour. PE have failed to carry out reasonable checks for a VRN that resembles mine. Merely producing a ‘white list look up’ for the exact VRN will NOT be helpful and is not fair business practice, and will mislead POPLA, and should be rejected as no evidence at all.

I call on PE to provide a full printout either side of payment for my son’s vehicle xxxx xxx (also currently appealing the same charge POPLA ref: xxxxxxxxxx) with other VRNs redacted, showing the VRN which most resembles mine, because until this point PE have not taken any steps to show they have even carried out their much-vaunted 19 point checks, designed to avoid unfair PCN issue for a mere keypad error. An error which may not even be the fault of the driver and could be due to sun-faded keys or faulty keys in their VRN entry system.

Does this seem ok?

Coupon-mad

Yes, seems OK except I would add times.

msa123

Hi All


Just an update.


One case (surprisingly the one where they stated no payment was made and I had to add the extra paragraph) has been successful as Parking Eye do no wish to contest. The other I have received evidence and need to provide comments within 7 days.


Any advice on what to focus on as the evidence I have been sent mainly shows signage and pictures of the car park. And one witness statement from the golf club confirming PE have authority to issue parking charge notices


The evidence states in the rules section -
Please note, the contract between the Landowner and ParkingEye cannot be provided as evidence. This is due to the commercially sensitive information that the contracts hold.








Thanks for all the help.