Parkingeye fine - Aire Street Leeds

Quentin

@ honeybee

Your thread is here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74235077#Comment_74235077

WaspHead

Hi there,

I am currently challenging a charge from these guys as well. As part of my appeal letter, of which I have used your letter as a point of reference, I have referred to some of the images that you refer to. Is there any chance that I can get copies of some of these images to attach to my appeal?

The ones that I would love to refer to are the birds eye view one, pic from supreme court, beavis sign, aire street entrance, sign higher than an X5 and Pic showing signs by entrance at Aire Street advising CCTV 24/7.

If you can share any of these with me that would really be appreciated, I live a few hundred miles away from Leeds so dont really have an option to get back up there to take piccies but relly want to fight this one.

Not sure how you could get the images to me, but perhaps someone here could suggest a way?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Coupon-mad

The original template POPLA points with the actual link to the Beavis sign and Supreme Court Tweet are in the NEWBIES thread post #3. This POPLA appeal was not written from scratch, it used the templates in the sticky thread that is there for all to read first, before posting.

Aire Street photos might well be in any ParkingEye Aire Street example that's linked in the NEWBIES thread (I think there is a link there to Marganne's memorable thread). If not just search the forum for Aire Street POPLA and read more examples till you find one with pictures.

Silvercloud18

I am absolutely gutted, disheartened and completely baffled to advise that my appeal was unsuccessful! It makes no sense as they say 15 mins "parked" is too long without paying but my friend behind me who was there for 16 minutes was satisfactory?!! What the hell do I do now. It's honestly really shocked me!

Silvercloud18

Operator Information and Evidence
Submitted 19/04/2018
POPLA assessment and decision
08/05/2018
Verification Code


DecisionUnsuccessful
Assessor NameLauren Bailey
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without making a payment.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they did not park and the operator has not allowed the correct grace period. The appellant explained that the driver could not turn around easily due to the car park conditions. The appellant also stated that there was a queue entering and exiting the site. The appellant commented that the car park is unlit and has a bad road surface. The appellant said that there are no bay markings and there is graffiti on the signs. They also stated that there is a lack of disabled bays. The appellant said that there is no space for disabled passengers to exit vehicles due to vehicles being double parked. The appellant questioned if the operator has the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant stated that ANPR system is not accurate or reliable. The appellant said that the signs do not state how the operator uses the data collected by ANPR. The appellant provided evidence that they left the site and paid at an alternative car park. The appellant referred to the Parking Eye vs Beavis case. Further, the appellant has referred to clarity of the terms on the signs. They have also commented on the location of the sins within this car park.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has not named the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore need to consider if the operator met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012). I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and I am satisfied that the operator has transferred liability correctly and met the requirements of PoFA 2012. The appellant stated that the operator has not complied Section 21.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, which states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.” Upon reviewing the evidence of the signage provided by the operator, I note it states “car park monitored by ANPR systems”. As such, I am satisfied that it is clear the data is used to monitor vehicle using this car park. I consider that it is clear the data is used to identify non-compliance with the terms and conditions at the site. The appellant has raised Section 21.2 of the BPA Code of Practice and questioned the reliability of the ANPR systems at this location. In terms of the technology of the ANPR cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the ANPR systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has found that the technology is generally accurate. Unless POPLA is presented with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, we work on the basis that the technology was working at the time of the alleged improper parking. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to provide POPLA with any evidence to substantiate their claims that the vehicle did not remain in the car park for the length of time suggested by the ANPR cameras. I must therefore work on the basis that they were in working order on the date of the contravention. The appellant’s case is that the operator has not provided any evidence that the operator has the authority to issue parking charges. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.” The operator has provided POPLA with a signed contract dated 24 March 2016. From the evidence provided by the operator, I can see that signs have been in place at this location since 2015. The operator still has signs at this site and is also still using ANPR to detect non-compliance with the car park terms and conditions. On the balance of probability I am satisfied that the operator does in fact have the permission of the landowner to issue parking charges on this land. The appellant stated the operator has not allowed a grace period. They explained the conditions at this car park and stated this affected the driver leaving the site. Section 13.2 of The BPA Code of Practice that states: “You 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”. However, the driver remained at the car park for 15 minutes without making a payment. I have considered the size of this car park and based on that, I believe that 15 minutes is in excess of a reasonable period to remain in this car park without making a payment. While I appreciate the appellant’s comments about the car park conditions, I do not consider that it would take 15 minutes to park, attempt to read the signs then leave a car park of this size. The appellant commented on the clarity of the signs in this car park. The appellant said that are not clear and were covered in graffiti. The terms and conditions in place at this car park state “parking tariffs apply…weekday: Mon – Fri, 8am – 6pm…overnight: Mon – Sun, 6pm – 8am”. I will therefore consider the clarity of the signs at this car park. Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states: “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Section 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice continues to state: “…as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of”. The operator has provided evidence of the entrance signs at the site. The entrance sign states: “tariff payable at machine or by phone”. I am satisfied this sign informed you that you were entering private land and were required to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signs. Having considered this, I am satisfied that it meets the requirements set out above and is sufficient to inform drivers that they are entering private land and need to be aware of terms and conditions once they are within the car park itself. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I consider the photographic evidence to show that the operator met the minimum standards set by the BPA. I am satisfied that the signage installed by the parking operator is “conspicuous”, “legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Additionally, I can see that there are lighting posts around this car park. This would suggest that the car park is lit at night. As the appellant has not provided evidence to show otherwise, I am satisfied there is sufficient lighting in this car park. While I appreciate the appellant’s comments that the signs have been defaced, they have not provided any evidence to support this. In any case, if the appellant could not read the terms they could have left the site in a more timely manner. The appellant referred to the Parking Eye vs Beavis case. I will therefore consider the prominence of the parking charge on the signs at this site. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that could be expected of the parking operator when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. As previously stated, I am satisfied that the signage at the car park is “conspicuous”, “legible, and the parking charge amount of £100 is prominently displayed on the signs. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the signage at the location is clear the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100, this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding the lack of disabled parking bays. However, the operator issued the parking charge as the appellant parked without making a payment. As a tariff applies to disabled motorists, where the appellant parked has no bearing on the outcome of the appeal. Fundamentally, it is the motorist’s responsibility to check for any terms and conditions, and either adhere to them or choose to leave. By parking your vehicle at the site, the driver of the vehicle is indicating an acceptance of the terms and conditions. After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the appellant failed to meet these terms and conditions. I can only conclude the operator issued the parking charge correctly. Therefore, this appeal must be refused.

Redx

NOTHING YOU CAN DO , UNLESS THERE WAS A "PROCEDURAL ERROR"

otherwise, its pay up or ignore and wait for an LBCCC or an MCOL to come in the post

you may stand more chance with a judge in small claims court, popla do make some strange decisions of late

Silvercloud18

Im so confused how on the same day. time in question one assessor can deem 16 mins is ok but my 15 mins wasnt? ignored their contract being illegible! completely baffled!!

Defo not taking this lying down. If my friends claim who was in the car behind was also refused id possibly accept it but it makes no sense what so ever

Coupon-mad

Agreed.

Do not pay, deal with the issues in court and use your friend as a witness.

It's the lottery of different Assessors:

Additionally, I can see that there are lighting posts around this car park. This would suggest that the car park is lit at night. As the appellant has not provided evidence to show otherwise, I am satisfied there is sufficient lighting in this car park. While I appreciate the appellant's comments that the signs have been defaced, they have not provided any evidence to support this. In any case, if the appellant could not read the terms they could have left the site in a more timely manner.

Nasty comments and ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT LIT SIGNS from a deluded POPLA Assessor.

Silvercloud18

Should i bother attempting to complain to POPLA about the assessor not sticking to the same guidelines as others?

Silvercloud18

Also dont understand why she has gone massive on ANPR when that was my last point. The grace period was my main, quoting the other assessors decision