Parking Eye - Letter before county court claim

johnvB

Hi

I have been issued with a letter before county court claim from ParkingEye.

Background story
I drove my wife to the hospital and parked up in the visitors area. I purchased a ticket using pay by phone dropped her off then left hospital and came to pick her up a few hours later (purchased a second ticket). Parking eye sent me a letter saying I had over stayed in the 20min drop off zone area and therefore had to pay them a penalty. I disputed this via Popla...below is there summary (includes my defence):

---

Decision Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant remained in the car park for longer than the stay authorised without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they visited the hospital twice in one day. The appellant states they purchased a ticket on both occasions. The appellant states they had to drive through the drop off zone to get to the patient parking area. The appellant states they did not park in the drop off zone. The appellant states the operator has not provided evidence to show that they parked in the drop off zone.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographic evidence of the terms and conditions, as displayed at the site, which states, “20 minutes max stay for all vehicles; For pick-up & drop-off from this point only; Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of £100”. The operator has provided images from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, which shows the appellant’s vehicle XXX XXXX entered the site on 19 March 2017 at 09:39 and exited the site at 10:18. The appellant remained at the site for a period of 38 minutes. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant remained in the car park for longer than the stay authorised without authorisation. The appellant’s case is that they visited the hospital twice in one day. The appellant states they purchased a ticket on both occasions. The appellant states they had to drive through the drop off zone to get to the patient parking area. The appellant states they did not park in the drop off zone. The appellant states the operator has not provided evidence to show that they parked in the drop off zone. The appellant has provided evidence of a site map provided by the NHS. This shows that within the patient parking areas there are drop of areas. However I am unable to take this into consideration when making my assessment; this is because the contract undertaken at the site is between the operator and the motorist, not with the NHS. The responsibility is that of the motorist to ensure that the terms and conditions at the site have been understood and agreed prior to entering into a contract with the operator. The operator has provided a site map which clearly identifies the boundaries of each individual car park within the XXXX Hospital site. The evidence provided illustrates that when motorists enter the site from the main entrance/exit they can take the second right for the drop of area; or the first right for patient and visitor parking. The operator has identified on the site map that all the different parking areas at the site are monitored by ANPR cameras, meaning that if the appellant had of entered the patient car park this would have been captured by the cameras. I note the appellant states they had to drive through the drop off zone to enter the patient car park; however the operator has demonstrated that there is a wall or barrier preventing this from happening. The appellant has provided evidence of a payment, and I acknowledge this, however the payment was not valid for the appellant’s vehicle to park in the drop off zone. Based on the evidence provided, I can only conclude that the appellant remained in the drop off zone for 38 minutes. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant remained in the car park for longer than the stay authorised without authorisation, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.

---

I don't believe Popla have dealt with the issue and Parking Eye have failed to show evidence my vehicle was parked in a drop off zone.

Is this the end of the road? or does this have any legs to take further?

tykesi

You need to get this moved to the parking board, you've posted on the general motoring thread.

DoaM

As above, PM a board guide to get this moved.

Did you review and rebut the Parking Eye evidence supplied to POPLA? Is it true what is said about being able to park where you did WITHOUT going through the drop-off zone? Was the signage clear?

It sounds like your POPLA appeal was "weak" ... almost all POPLA appeals generated using help from the Parking forum here win at POPLA.

What happens next? Nothing ... the POPLA decision is not binding on the motorist. The only way PE can try to make you pay is by small claims court action. I'd guess you'd have a very strong defence if that should happen ... PE would have to prove that you did park in the drop-off zone, and the fact you paid to park is in your favour. Keep those receipts!