Is it worth mentioning pregnancy on first template?

Jonesbo

Hi,

The keeper received a letter from Euro Car Parks regarding an overstay in a pub car park.

The driver had to get change from the pub to purchase the ticket. According to ECP ANPR entry was at 4.15, exit at 5.23. Ticket which the driver retains was valid until 5.21.

According to the Newbies thread "You can (carefully!) add a little to the template above..."

Given that the driver was 8m pregnant, is it worth adding this, or is that a no-no for any reason?

Additonally, what's the rough timeframe from template appeal to popla to popla decision?

Thanks

KeithP

Just send the blue template appeal from post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.
Send it as it is - no changes or additions necessary.
Send it as the keeper.

At the same time complain to the pub.

No point in mentioning pregnancy or any other mitigating circumstances.
These parking companies are in it for money. Nothing else. There is no profit in letting anyone off.

Ralph-y

more importantly you should be informed re 'grace periods '

I hope not ... but your incoming baby might be many months old when this is finished .... hope things go well

you can use the 'pregnancy' angle if you feel like sending letters after watching / reading the below

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he wants further information about this scam.

Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

According to ECP ANPR entry was at 4.15, exit at 5.23. Ticket which the driver retains was valid until 5.21.

That's well within grace periods if the ticket covered the hour from 4.21 till 5.21?

Given that the driver was 8m pregnant, is it worth adding this, or is that a no-no for any reason?

Yes in this case, I would, and I wouldn't use the template! My advice:

I would just cite the BPA CoP on grace periods and state that the BPA's Kelvin Reynolds stated in a formal BPA article, that good parking management required grace periods and that it may take some people longer to get to and from a PDT machine:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

'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...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.'

DO NOT MENTION GETTING CHANGE.

Just say that it took the driver longer to comfortably get out of the car and collect their belongings before going to read a sign, rummage for change and then pay, and they did so within five or six minutes. And this was because the driver was 8 months pregnant at the time, and was slower moving and less nimble on their feet than usual.

Given the above and the fact the attached ticket covered 4.21 - 5.21, and the car left within 2 minutes of expiry, it's clear this fits well within reasonable grace periods for a heavily pregnant visitor and to pursue a charge would be in breach of the ICO CoP for ANPR/surveillance cameras, which in turn puts the operator in breach of the BPA Code, too.

Jonesbo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's well within grace periods if the ticket covered the hour from 4.21 till 5.21?

Yes in this case, I would, and I wouldn't use the template! My advice:

I would just cite the BPA CoP on grace periods and state that the BPA's Kelvin Reynolds stated in a formal BPA article, that good parking management required grace periods and that it may take some people longer to get to and from a PDT machine:

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

'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...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.'

DO NOT MENTION GETTING CHANGE.

Just say that it took the driver longer to comfortably get out of the car and collect their belongings before going to read a sign, rummage for change and then pay, and they did so within five or six minutes. And this was because the driver was 8 months pregnant at the time, and was slower moving and less nimble on their feet than usual.

Given the above and the fact the attached ticket covered 4.21 - 5.21, and the car left within 2 minutes of expiry, it's clear this fits well within reasonable grace periods for a heavily pregnant visitor and to pursue a charge would be in breach of the ICO CoP for ANPR/surveillance cameras, which in turn puts the operator in breach of the BPA Code, too.

Thanks, that's really helpful.

Indeed, ticket was 4.21-5.21. Will draft and post ECP appeal here, to clarify, are you saying I shouldn't mention all the usual stuff re: popla etc from the appeal template?

KeithP

Additonally I can't see anywhere to appeal to ECP aside from info@ecp email address. I know I shouldn't post the appeal, so should I send it to that email instead?

Doesn't the letter the keeper received from ECP tell you how to appeal?

But you are right, a real letter is the last resort.

kryten3000

"No point in mentioning pregnancy or any other mitigating circumstances."

Pregnancy is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, it is *not* a mitigating circumstance.

Coupon-mad

Yes but the protection is so limited (except in a workplace situation) it's weak compared with disability discrimination. There is no right to 'reasonable adjustments' which is why I didn't mention it in what I suggest the OP writes in the online appeal.

to clarify, are you saying I shouldn't mention all the usual stuff re: popla etc from the appeal template?

None of it.

Jonesbo

So something like this? To clarify, how would the keeper pursue this further if rejected, would ECP still include a popla code with the rejection even if the appeal doesn't mention popla Etc from the standard template?

Thanks in advance

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re PCN number: xx

I appeal and dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle.

On the letter received you provide two pictures of the car numberplate, asserting that this shows entry at 4.15pm and exit at 5.23pm. The reason given for the charge is 'no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Attached with this appeal is the parking ticket purchased at 4.21pm on the date in question, and valid until 5.21pm.

I'd like to draw to your attention the British Parking Associations Code of Practice on Grace Periods. The BPA's Kelvin Reynolds stated in a formal BPA article, that good parking management required these grace periods and that it may take some people longer to get to and from a PDT machine:

"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...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."

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

In this case it took the driver longer to comfortably get out of the car and collect their belongings before going to read a sign, find change and then pay, and they did so within five or six minutes. And this was because the driver was over seven months pregnant at the time, and was slower moving and less nimble on their feet than usual.

Given the above and the fact the attached ticket covered 4.21 - 5.21, and the car left within 2 minutes of expiry, it's clear this fits well within reasonable grace periods for a heavily pregnant visitor and to pursue a charge would be in breach of the ICO CoP for ANPR/surveillance cameras, which in turn puts the operator in breach of the BPA Code, too.

Yours faithfully,

Registered Keeper

KeithP

Jonesbo wrote: »

...would ECP still include a popla code with the rejection even if the appeal doesn't mention popla Etc from the standard template?

Yes, they must.

Coupon-mad

The reason given for the charge is 'no valid pay and display/permit was purchased.

Attached with this appeal is the parking ticket purchased at 4.21pm on the date in question, and valid until 5.21pm.

So they say no PDT was purchased. So does the ticket have the right VRN?