ParkingEye PLeasureland Morecambe

jolite100

Thanks Coupon-Mad. Useful. I've looked again at the service agreement - several things redacted including most of the text in the box titled 'car park free stay time limit'. The only thing they've not redacted here is the beginning bit "no free stay". I suspect the blacked-out bit could be grace period. The landowner is "Johnny's Entertainments Tyneside limited". PE has redacted the company head office address. I'm away from home at the moment and using this forum with an iPhone. On Monday I could extract the service agreement pages at work within Acrobat and upload it?

Also, the agreement has expired -it's dated 25/6/15 and agreement says it expires in 24 months. Isn't this alone enough to demonstrate PE had supplied no evidence of landowner authority? Signatories are blanked out too.

I can search forums properly on Monday - many thanks for all the support.

Umkomaas

You go to work on the unsatisfactory nature of the heavily redacted contract. Don’t hold back, it’s for them to prove their case. Redacting large swathes needs to be argued as hiding essential information.

Coupon-mad

Also, the agreement has expired -it's dated 25/6/15 and agreement says it expires in 24 months. Isn't this alone enough to demonstrate PE had supplied no evidence of landowner authority? Signatories are blanked out too.

POPLA like that...!

Can you ring the place on Sunday, such a place must be open and dead easy to Google 'contact us'.

jolite100

Back at work and took another look over PE evidence pack. Thought the contract had expired but noticed the following in the early case summary pages:

"Please be advised that in clause 4.4 of the redacted contract inserted into Section G, the clause advises the following:

‘This Agreement may be terminated by either party on expiry of the Initial Term by the provision of at least 30 days’ written notice to the other party, prior to expiry of the Initial Term (for each year of the Initial term). If no such notice of termination is received by either party further to 4.4 or 4.5, this Agreement shall automatically continue in force for a further period equivalent to the Initial Term under the same terms and conditions contained herein unless terminated pursuant to Clause 12, and this same Agreement renewal process shall apply for every subsequent cycle thereafter.’

ParkingEye can confirm this contract has not been terminated by either party, so the contract was effective on the date the charge was incurred"

Does that cover them on this point or not?

So it looks like my main argument is on grace period. PE state in the case summary:

"ParkingEye operates a grace period on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether or not they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking. There is a sufficient grace period in place at this site which is fully compliant with the BPA code of practice. All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more in line with the BPA Code of Practice."

Spoke to the Pleasureland amusement arcade manager yesterday who told me the grace period is 10 mins "by law". Had sympathy with me... gets lots of calls. However, as I mentioned in my post yesterday, why has text about the 'free stay time limit' been redacted on the supply agreement - it can't be anything to do with reasons of commercial confidentiality (I'd upload a scan but as a new user I'm not allowed to post links).

In my rebuttal, I'll state PE has not acknowledged my evidence about the circumstances on the day. My other argument will point to PE ignoring my evidence (and photo) of the instructions on the ticket machine, which is the 'signage' that motorists read.

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye can confirm this contract has not been terminated by either party, so the contract was effective on the date the charge was incurred"

Does that cover them on this point or not?

I would still mention it to POPLA and say PE have shown no evidence that the contract is current.

jolite100

PE has not addressed the constraints and circumstances at Pleasureland car park on the day in question – outlined in my evidence file in relation to grace period.

PE state in their case summary (Section that, “All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more” but PE fail to reveal what the site-specific graced period is at Pleasureland car park. This information appears to have been redacted in the basic supply agreement (Section G). PE’s associated ‘terms and conditions of supply’ (Section G) state the applicable grace period is specified in the site specific ‘user manual’ guidance but PE has not supplied a copy for inspection.

PE has not acknowledged the fact that the ticket machine instructions give a misleading impression to the driver that the printed ticket time is the commencement time of the parking contract. PE has not provided a photo of the ticket machine instructions but a photo is included in my evidence file under ‘inadequate signage’. The misleading instruction (bottom left hand corner of photo) reads, “During busy periods please find parking space prior to purchasing ticket”.

PE has shown no evidence that their contract with the landowner (Section G) is current.

That's all I've got for what I see as relevant points. Guess I don't need to repeat anything from my evidence and that popla will read it?! In that, I did make the point (a few posts up) re popla finding in favour of the motorist re a similar 13 minutes 'overstay' at Newquay and gave the case details.

Castle

jolite100 wrote: »

PE state in their case summary (Section that, “All grace periods in place are a minimum of 10 minutes or more” but PE fail to reveal what the site-specific graced period is at Pleasureland car park.

There are two grace periods; one before you pay and the second after you leave your parking spot. So, if pay for 3 hours parking then the total time on site allowed is at least 3 Hours 20 minutes; and your stay of 3 hours 13 minutes falls under that minimum allowed time.

jolite100

Thanks, I will amend text above to refer to grace periods. Are they additive? Would be a simple ruling in my favour it they are.

I'll also state PE's 'terms and conditions' of landowner contract are illegible.

Redx

yes they are additive

one before the parking period , and one after

have you read clause #13 of the BPA CoP (download it)

the period to leave is "over 10 minutes"

now if we assume it was 10 minutes to leave, would you agree that the 3 minutes to enter , find a spot , park up , go and read the signs and comply with them (possibly buying a ticket from a ticket machine) would be 3 OR MORE minutes ?

the initial period is not specified, but it is thought to be 5 to 10 minutes , with 11 or more minutes to leave

so 2 + 11 ?
or 3 + 10 ?
or 5 + 8 ?

its all relevant , so they lose on this aspect time and again , which is why its your STRONGEST legal argument in your popla appeal and was mentioned a few times already

Coupon-mad

In that, I did make the point (a few posts up) re popla finding in favour of the motorist re a similar 13 minutes 'overstay' at Newquay and gave the case details.

I think I would just 'nudge' POPLA on that by reminding them that your appeal included that other (POPLA decided) 13 minute case, where the Assessor found as fact that a similar time was perfectly reasonable, given the size, popularity, position and nature of this car park.

Then remind POPLA briefly that there are two grace periods and the instruction on the ticket machine - effectively saying ''when it's busy you can find a space before you come here to start the contract by paying'' confirms the position that there has to be a grace period allowed at the start, in addition to (not offset against) the minimum ten minutes after paid-for time.