POPLA Appeal for Parkingeye Aire Street Car Park Leeds

notmyrealnaame

Hi All,

Putting together a POPLA appeal against parkingeye for the Aire Street car park in Leeds. Used the blue text appeal to parkingeye already, it got rejected (of course). The PCN was issued for an 11 minute overstay. The parking ticket got thrown away long before the PCN came through but I can guarantee it took longer than a minute to get into that car park and buy a ticket which means it was within BPA grace periods. I have read through the forums quite a lot and can see all the other arguments, inappropriate ANPR, non-compliant NTK, incorrect signage in the car park, no landowner contract etc. However, having read through a lot of POPLA responses and the T&Cs displayed in the car park there were no contraventions by parkingeye in any of these areas, so is there any point adding all that in to my appeal when the grace periods is the only thing that really holds any weight?

First draft of the appeal below:

I am writing to you to lodge a formal appeal against a parking charge notice sent to myself as registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

I contend that I am not liable for this parking charge on the basis of the points below:

1) Grace periods were not applied.

Please consider section 13 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Clause 13.2 states “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.” Further, clause 13.4 states “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

The ANPR photos used as evidence of the alleged overstay show an entry time of 13:43:56 and a departure time of 17:55:14, a mere 11 minutes longer than the 4 hours of parking which was paid for. The surface of the car park is extremely rough and uneven and there are no marked parking bays (see fig. 1.) as such it takes at least a few minutes upon entering the car park to safely navigate and find a suitable parking space. Followed by reading the terms and conditions of the car park and purchasing a ticket it is reasonable to assume at least 2 minutes passed between entering the car park and purchasing a ticket although it is likely the time was in fact longer than this. Nowhere on the terms and conditions of the car park does it explicitly state that the parking time begins upon entry to the car park (see fig. 2.), as such it is reasonable to assume that the parking time commences upon purchasing a ticket. Therefore when the driver returned to the car and left the car park, no more than 4 hours and 10 minutes had passed since purchasing the ticket which is within the 10 minute grace period required by the BPA. For that reason the operator has not allowed the driver a reasonable period to leave the car park after the parking contract ended before it took enforcement action and therefore the PCN was not issued correctly.

The_Deep

They know that you are well inside the b5race periods, complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.