ParkingEye (its a different one)

thesa

Hi!


I was issued a £100 fine from ParkingEye for "parking" at Keepmoat Stadium in Doncaster for 38 minutes without a permit/authorization. I guarantee I'm not the only one graced with their letter today since there was a football practice on at the other side.



ANYWAY. I left the parking lot and came back twice. I was out for a drive with my girlfriend, we stopped there for a cigarette and did not exit the car. Hell, even the photo shows the headlights are on and it's so dark you cannot even see who was driving, or even if it's my car, it's a reg plate and 4 lights.



Both photos taken from different angles. Perhaps I parked in a different bay on my second entry with munchies from Morrison's? Anyway, 38 minutes at £100. Gotta be one of the most expensive dates ever ahah!


So this one's different. I didn't exit the vehicle or even switch the engine off for that matter. I can't remember exactly what time I left and returned but the photos lead me to believe I'd definitely done so as they're at two angles. Is it technically parking if you don't leave or switch the motor off? You don't "park" when waiting at traffic lights.



I've read the FAQ which is incredibly informative but obviously I don't know which steps to take as I'd say I wasn't parked and I'd also say that the timescale is incorrect if I'd left and retuned - yet I cannot remember exact times.


Cheers in advance.

Coupon-mad

Both photos taken from different angles. Perhaps I parked in a different bay on my second entry with munchies from Morrison's?

If this is ParkingEye, then there will be no photos of the car in a bay. ANPR captures the car at the entrance and exit only, moving in/out of the site.

Is it PE?

Do you mean you were not there for 38 minutes, and this was a double visit? Do either of you have phones (or your Dashcam) with Google location which will show your whereabouts and true times? Always good to prove them wrong.

thesa

It is PE. There are previous threads here that state Parking Eye operate this stadium so I'm sure it's not a front.


I do not currently have a dashcam fitted. It could definitely be a double visit though, however if their cameras are accurate I was only fined for one visit? Which makes me wonder why I've never been fined before, I go there a lot for walks and breaks from driving.

Coupon-mad

Google location on your phones, you and the passenger if the was one?

thesa

I'll have to have a look. What are my next steps if I can't prove where I was?


Edit: Looks like I was fined for my second visit. Location history has a lot of gaps, but enough to make a decent timeline. Oddly enough it's claimed I was there for 38 minutes when I was there for almost triple that. Oh well.



1843-1945 1st visit
2008-2128 2nd visit

Guys_Dad

thesa wrote: »

Hi!




So this one's different. I didn't exit the vehicle or even switch the engine off for that matter. I can't remember exactly what time I left and returned but the photos lead me to believe I'd definitely done so as they're at two angles. Is it technically parking if you don't leave or switch the motor off? You don't "park" when waiting at traffic lights.



.

The question you asked is the "Bill Clinton" defence and, yes, whether you are inside the car, engine on or off, you are occupying the same space so you are parked.

I, too, am surprised if PARKING EYE have cameras anywhere other than entry and exit.

thesa

Okay. So on that basis I handle it like the others then, day 26, POPLA code, I'm the owner but not the driver, etc?


Would the "justifiable loss" be relevant to this case?

The_Deep

I am struggling, is this an overstay or a failure to pay? WRT justifiable loss, no chance, read Beavis V Parking eye.

If you think your have a case, (which personally I do not), complain to your MP as 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.

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.

Fruitcake

thesa wrote: »

Okay. So on that basis I handle it like the others then, day 26, POPLA code, I'm the owner but not the driver, etc?


Would the "justifiable loss" be relevant to this case?

No need to wait until day 26 if there was no NTD.
It's keeper not owner who appeals.
Forget justifiable loss.

Unfortunately your car was parked and the scammers allegedly caught this on camera.
This is no different to every other case we see so you need to follow the standard advice in the NEWBIES.

If you are going to appeal as keeper then you need to edit all your posts to remove information about who did what.
Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.

Parking scammers read these fora and have been know to use information from here at appeal stage and in court.

Have you checked to see if you have a "golden ticket" NTK? (One that is too late to transfer liability to the keeper and doesn't have the PoFA wording on the back. There is an example of what to look for in the NEWBIES.)

You should go back on foot and take pics of the entrance and signage around the site in the same light conditions as the alleged event without using flash.

One other piece of advice. Don't ever drive in there again. I used to live in Bessacarr and I'm sure there are still plenty of places you can stop to admire the view.

Umkomaas

thesa wrote: »

Would the "justifiable loss" be relevant to this case?

Dead in the water, and PE is the wrong marine to pick a fight with on this as it was they who persuaded The Supreme Court (PE v Beavis) that there was no need to prove a 'justifiable loss' to make private parking tickets enforceable.

waamo

thesa wrote: »

Okay. So on that basis I handle it like the others then, day 26, POPLA code, I'm the owner but not the driver, etc?


Would the "justifiable loss" be relevant to this case?

You handle just like the other because it is, in fact, just like the others. Send the blue template to get your POPLA code then appeal to POPLA.

Check your paperwork very carefully. There is a very strong possibility it isn't POFA compliant which gives you a pretty much automatic win if you get the POPLA appeal right.

Post up your proposed POPLA appeal once it's ready for review.