11 minutes = £100? - Aire Street Leeds - Parking Eye

Si0302039

Hey Guys,

I'm just in the process of writing my appeal to Parking Eye due to a fine the driver recieved for parking at the car park in Aire Street, Leeds.

The driver entered the car park at 16:40:28 and left at 16:51:54 totaling 11 minutes spent there.

As the driver entered the car park they intended to pay through their advertised mobile phone app, they parked up, downloaded the app, registered with all their information and went to purchase time. While parking, they had several issues with the app downloading and their registration continued to crash the app. Once they sucessfully registered they proceded to buy parking time using the app, It crashed again. They therefore decided that they would move to another car park in the area.

So the driver has basically recieved a £100 parking charge notice for 11 minutes while attempting to buy a ticket.

Does anyone have any reccomendations wether to mention this in my appeal to Parking Eye, or if there are any clauses I can use to build my case regarding the payment system?

Thanks!

Simon.

KeithP

Hi Si0302039. Welcome to the forums.

You would be wise to edit your post to remove any clues as to who the driver was.

For example, your second sentence should look something like:

The driver entered the car park at 16:4028 and left at 16:51:54 totaling 11 minutes spent there.

Review and adjust the rest of you post similarly.

This is not just pedantry.
Parking companies routinely trawl forums looking for people to trip themselves up and if they can find a keeper who admits to being a driver that is a great help to their cause.

The_Deep

Does it really matter who the driver was? OP tried to pay, couldn't and left. Surely no judge in the land would tell him to pay.


n

RobinofLoxley

Si0302039 wrote: »

So the keeper basically recieved a £100 penalty notice for 11 minutes while attempting to buy a ticket

It isn't a penalty notice, it's a parking charge notice, big difference. It's an invoice sent by Parking Eye for breaking their made up rules.

As KeithP has said you need to edit your post so as to not infer or give any indication to who was driving. The same goes for your appeal to Parking Eye, you are appealing as 'keeper' of the vehicle.

Read the 'Newbies thread at the top of the first page on this forum. It explains much about how this scam industry works and how to go about successfully avoiding the charge.

As Parking Eye are a member of and in the approved operator scheme of the British Parking Association your case is easily winnable. Even if PE don't cancel with your appeal to them it should be easily won at the 2nd stage appeal level which is POPLA.

This is because 11 minutes in a car park is within the 'Grace Period' that allows the motorist to enter a car park, read the signs, decide whether to park or not and in the case of not, leave.

These 'Grace Periods' are stipulated in the BPA's Code of Practice and should be a major part of an appeal by yourself as keeper of the vehicle.

RobinofLoxley

The_Deep wrote: »

Does it really matter who the driver was? OP tried to pay, couldn't and left. Surely no judge in the land would tell him to pay.

I suppose not but I'm sure the OP would rather this not get as far as county court.

It should be a straightforward win at POPLA, far less stressful

Si0302039

Thank you! Amended .

KeithP wrote: »

Hi Si0302039. Welcome to the forums.

You would be wise to edit your post to remove any clues as to who the driver was.

For example, your second sentence should look something like:

The driver entered the car park at 16:4028 and left at 16:51:54 totaling 11 minutes spent there.

Review and adjust the rest of you post similarly.

This is not just pedantry.
Parking companies routinely trawl forums looking for people to trip themselves up and if they can find a keeper who admits to being a driver that is a great help to their cause.

Si0302039

Thank you for your reply! I've amdended the post regarding your comments! I will be submiting my appeal later this evening.

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

It isn't a penalty notice, it's a parking charge notice, big difference. It's an invoice sent by Parking Eye for breaking their made up rules.

As KeithP has said you need to edit your post so as to not infer or give any indication to who was driving. The same goes for your appeal to Parking Eye, you are appealing as 'keeper' of the vehicle.

Read the 'Newbies thread at the top of the first page on this forum. It explains much about how this scam industry works and how to go about successfully avoiding the charge.

As Parking Eye are a member of and in the approved operator scheme of the British Parking Association your case is easily winnable. Even if PE don't cancel with your appeal to them it should be easily won at the 2nd stage appeal level which is POPLA.

This is because 11 minutes in a car park is within the 'Grace Period' that allows the motorist to enter a car park, read the signs, decide whether to park or not and in the case of not, leave.

These 'Grace Periods' are stipulated in the BPA's Code of Practice and should be a major part of an appeal by yourself as keeper of the vehicle.

The_Deep

but I'm sure the OP would rather this not get as far as county court.


On what evidence do you make that statement. I and most of my friends would relish giving them a bloody nose in court.

Johno100

I knew before I'd got to the end of the thread title that this would be Parking Eye.

I assume they are just getting greedier in issuing these tickets for de-minimis grace period stays (and short overstays). I think we can expect to see a spike in such cases over the upcoming festive period when car parks are rammed and queues to park and leave are at their greatest.

Umkomaas

I knew before I'd got to the end of the thread title that this would be Parking Eye.

The thread title was a bit of a clue too!

11 minutes = £100? - Aire Street Leeds - Parking Eye

Johno100

Umkomaas wrote: »

The thread title was a bit of a clue too!

11 minutes = £100? - Aire Street Leeds - Parking Eye

Have a re-read of what I posted.