Multiple ANPR ParkingEye fines on residential property

Coupon-mad

Those are either APCOA signs, or Council signs using APCOA as a contractor (i.e. in 2015 when it was operated differently).

Is it definitely ParkingEye now, with completely different signs? I find it very odd that PE could operate that site with ANPR.

As Parking Eye only took over in mid July

So a brand new change, yet with insufficient new signs? See the BPA CoP about 'new restrictions' requiring extra signs to alert people locally...seems they have failed.

Umkomaas

The signage is not that clear on my iPad, but none of the signs (admittedly I can only just make them out) look anything like ParkingEye ones.

rubberduck1

Yes I am pretty definite it is PE now, I took a photo of one sign a while ago, and then went back again today and took a few photos of the entrance way etc and all the signs and they are definitely PE.

Coupon-mad

Can we see the new photos, please?

Host them in Dropbox, and BREAK THE URL LINK as you are new...

rubberduck1

Hope this works

dropbox.com/sh/acv0wiqr0zv0ge1/AACxbsSHPgHvZwp7b1jEYhIha?dl=0

KeithP

www.dropbox.com/sh/acv0wiqr0zv0ge1/AACxbsSHPgHvZwp7b1jEYhIha?dl=0

"Patrons Only"
"Resident Permit Holders Only"
"Patron Only Car Park"

Looks like a full set of prohibitive signs to me.

Coupon-mad

Yes - no offer of parking made to anyone else, and they have even left up a COUNCIL sign 'resident permit holders only' (that is NOT a private parking sign, it's Local Authority (TSRGD) in size, words and typeface/design).

As Parking Eye only took over in mid July

Remembering the above, I am not seeing compliance with the BPA CoP, either:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2018.pdf

18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that
materially affects the motorist then you must make these
terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such
changes impose liability where none previously existed then
you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the
site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.

Best practice would be the installation of additional/
temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site
making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will
ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with
the previous terms become aware of the new ones.

So PE's version of that, is leave an old Local Authority sign up (to mislead people that nothing has changed, and/or that this is public highway beyond) then just dot a few sparse/standard PE signs up as well.

rubberduck1

KeithP "Looks like a full set of prohibitive signs to me."
Are you saying fighting it based on signs won't work?

Coupon-mad thanks I will incorporate that into my argument as one of the main points, as I know it's not just me that didn't notice the new signs!

Umkomaas

Prohibitive signs do not offer you any parking and therefore do not form a contract with you. The case is at best one of trespass, and that's for the landowner to pursue, not PE.

In Beavis terms, the penalty clause is firmly engaged here. Private firms cannot issue penalties.

System

Wow that will screw up the Doctors' and Nurses' lives.

A rather unfortunate turn of phrase. The usual reason for permits/5 hours stays is to prevent overnight stays by paramours (a very old but apt phrase). Typical too is the closure of the permit office at 5pm.

There is also the issue of accommodation licenses restricting overnight stays but these won't have the protection (another pun) that a parking licence does.

Not suggesting the driver was involved in such an event, just giving context for the the Keeper to why the signs are likely to be there.

The timings on the PCN's would clearly be relevant here.