Parking fine help please

Sooty789

Hi All.
I received a £100 parking fine for parking on private land at a car park in Southsea whilst on holiday at Christmas time.
The car park is controlled by way of ANPR and a pay and display machine with registration plate entry. There are no marked spaces in the car park, it was just a rather rough piece of land in the town centre.
I entered the car park at 10:52:37 and left at 13:04:52.
I purchased a ticket at 10:59 for 2 hours parking - it expired at 12:59.
I did return to my car in time to leave the car park before 12:59 but when about to put my 2 year old in her seat I noticed she had soiled her nappy so, as to avoid her discomfort, quickly changed her on the car seat before leaving the car park. I appealed the parking ticket on the grounds that I did not think it unreasonable to leave 5 minutes late due to the circumstances, direct to Smart Parking, who rejected my appeal on the basis that my total overstay is 12 minutes.
I have since appealed to POPLA on the same grounds, Smart Parking have now responded and I have 7 days to post up to 2000 words in comments to their response - this is what I would like help with please! I have read a lot on the forums about grace periods that the BPA have issued guidance on so I think I should go down that route but not sure exactly what to say? This is the rather lengthy response to POPLA that Smart Parking have given:




On the 29/12/2018 the vehicle with registration L****** was captured by the cameras at RICHMOND
PLACE SOUTHSEA entering and exiting the car park.
The car park in question is an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system and Pay by Plate
monitored car park. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry
or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by. When the vehicle
enters it creates one image which will then be paired with the subsequent exit image. The system then
compares the time a vehicle has been on site with the amount of parking time purchased using the
Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM). If the vehicle overstays the paid parking time or there is no payment
for the vehicle registration which was captured by the ANPR, a Parking Charge Notice will be created
and sent out to the registered keeper.
In the Appellants appeal to POPLA the Appellants states that they entered the car park and purchased
a ticket in good faith for 2 hours duration. The Appellant states that they returned to their car within
the 2 hours ready to leave however, when they came to put their 2-year-old in the car, it was evident
that she had just filled her nappy. The Appellant states they proceeded to change her on the seat of the
car before driving off, but this extra task tipped them over the 2 hours of parking, they don't believe it
is reasonable to expect them to pay a £60 fine for this. The Appellant states that they were 5 minutes
late leaving in total and the provider argues that they were 12 minutes over in total as they entered the
car park 7 minutes before their ticket was purchased - it is not unreasonable for it to take 7 minutes to
find a space, park into thatspace, get a buggy out of the car, get your 2 year old out and into that buggy
before proceeding to the machine to buy a ticket.
Smart Parking Ltd would like to clarify that this Parking Charge Notice was issued for insufficient paid
time. The contravention of insufficient paid time is issued when there is no payment or there is an
underpayment for the vehicle registration mark. As there was an underpayment for the VRM L******,
the PCN was issued correctly for insufficient paid time. We can further confirm the Appellant paid for
the full and correct VRM “L******” for a total amount of 120 minutes, however the vehicle was parked
on site for a total of 132 minutes, therefore over staying a total of 12 minutes. It is the responsibility of
the Appellant as a motorist to ensure they purchase a valid ticket for their full, correct vehicle
registration mark and for the duration of their stay when using this car park
The site in question is ANPR operated, every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed
by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes
by, which is why it is important that motorists enter their full, correct registration so this can be
calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the
vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate time. We would like to clarify that it is up to the
motorist to take into consideration their time on site. Sufficient time is taken in to consideration for
drivers to enter the car park, read the terms and conditions, and decide whether to purchase a ticket
or leave the car park. The terms and conditions of the site clearly state ““If you do not accept both sets
of terms, we are unable to offer you our parking facilities, and require you to remove your vehicle from
the car park immediately or, where the Automated Plate Recognition cameras (ANPR) are in use, within
10 minutes of entry.”. Had the Appellant acknowledged the signage in the car park they would have
been aware of the terms and conditions of the site. The signage on site clearly states Parking tariff
applies 24 hours Monday –Sunday” and “failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a
parking charge of £100.00”. This further confirms that as the Appellant remained on site for 132 minutes
without purchasing a valid ticket to cover the 12 minutes overstay on site, the parking charge was
incurred correctly.
Furthermore, Smart Parking Ltd clearly display the reasons in which a parking charge notice can be
issued, stating “motorists must enter the full correct vehicle registration when using the payment
machine. Failure to comply with this will result in a Parking Charge of £100.00" therefore as the
Appellant remained on site for 132 minutes, 12 minutes over the paid time of 120 minutes, therefore
breaching the advertised terms and conditions the parking charge has been correctly issued.
The BPA Code of Practice January 2018, paragraph 19.3 states If the driver breaks the contract, for
example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on
your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the
driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions. We can confirm it is clearly stated on the
signage located on the site “Motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the
payment machine”, “Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of
£100”. Therefore, as the Appellant failed to purchase a valid ticket, this confirms the Appellant
breached the contract and the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly as per the terms and
conditions of the site.
Overall as the Appellant failed to purchase a valid ticket for the full, correct vehicle registration to cover
their full duration of stay on site, this confirms the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and in
accordance to the terms and conditions of the site. It is clearly stated on the signage “Motorists must
enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment system and failure to comply with
the advertised terms and conditions will result in parking charge notice of £100”. This further confirms
the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly and in accordance with the advertised terms and
conditions.
The Appellant entered the site at 10:52:37am and exited the site at 1:04:52pm. The Appellant’s total
duration of stay was 132 minutes. As the Appellant failed to purchase a ticket to cover their full duration
of stay, the Appellant therefore failed to comply with the advertised terms and conditions and this
confirmsthe Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. It is the responsibility of all motorists to ensure
that they pay for their full duration of stay and enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the
payment machine. It is also the responsibility of the motorist to clearly acknowledge the signage located
around the site.
Within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states “the Grace Period at the end of the parking
period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” We can confirm the grace period at the site is 10 minutes.
Based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the Appellants vehicle remained on site for 132
minutes and so has exceeded the minimum of 10 minutes as stated within Section 13.4 of the BPA Code
of Practice.
There are various signs located around the site including entrance signs that states the terms and
conditions of the site. The signs do state failure to comply with the advertised terms and conditions will
result in a parking charge notice of £100 discounted at £60. The terms and conditions are clearly
advertised stating in which circumstances a parking charge notice may be issued. Had the driver
acknowledged the terms and conditions they would have been aware that a ticket needed to be
purchased for their full, correct vehicle registration to cover their full duration of stay.
The car park is private land and the owners allow access to the public on condition that they park
according to the advertised terms and conditions, the signs warn that non-compliance may result in a
parking charge notice. Persons entering the car park are, in effect, agreeing to the terms and conditions
and if they park in breach of the terms and conditions the landowner has a right to make a charge. The
terms and conditions of the car park are requested by our client and Smart Parking Limited as an agent
enforces these.
In the light above and evidence enclosed. Smart Parking Limited have decided to uphold the parking charge notice.


Thanks in advance for your help!

The_Deep

Read what one MP said recently about Smart Parking in the HofC

Pete Wishart (SNP, Perth):

"I am sick and tired of receiving emails from people complaining about the behaviour of parking companies, telling me that they will never again visit Perth city centre because of the negative experience they had when they had the misfortune to end up in a car park operated by one of these companies. I have received more complaints about one car park in the city of Perth than about any other issue. That car park is operated by the lone ranger of the parking cowboys: the hated and appalling Smart Parking—I see that many other Members are unfortunate enough to have Smart Parking operating in their constituencies. It has reached the stage where one member of my staff now spends a good part of each day just helping my constituents and visitors to my constituency to navigate the appeals process.
…
The BPA does not have the ability to regulate these companies and has shown no sign whatsoever that it is trying to get on top of some of the sharper practices. The BPA gives a veneer of legitimacy to some of the more outlandish rogue operators by including them in their membership, allowing them to continue to operate. The Bill will oblige operators such as Smart Parking to amend their practices."

and complain to your own MP

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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

There are two grace periods in the BPA CoP of ten minutes each. You should quote both to rebut Not-so-Smart's comments about "a" grace period.

Quote this court case and modify it slightly to suit you situation because, driving to and from the parking space is not parking.
Do however quote precisely this sentence, "The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked."

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

The Jopson case may also be of help, where a judge has defined parking as opposed to stopping in paragraphs 19 and 20. He also mentions certain functions such as making a delivery, "and perhaps coping with
some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a
puncture."
In your case, the "vicissitude of short duration" was to change a child's nappy.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/f6d657adf7df70d27e1dd285688b5701?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

There was also a case where a judge stated the parking contract started when the P & D ticket was issued, not when the vehicle entered the car park. I can't find it at the moment but I'll keep looking.

Post your rebuttal here for checking before you submit it.

Whatever else you do, please complain to your MP.

KeithP

Sooty789 wrote: »

Smart Parking have now responded and I have 7 days to post up to 2000 words in comments to their response...

No you don't.

You have seven days to send them up to 2000 characters.

Sooty789

Thanks everyone for your replies, I will definitely also be writing to my local MP this evening. Thanks for the heads up KeithP ref 2000 characters and not words! Here is my first bash coming out at 1534 characters:




In response to the Operator’s submitted evidence:


The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place. The BPA CoP 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.”


As the Operator has clearly stated in their reply “the Grace Period at the end of the parking
period should be a minimum of 10 minutes. We can confirm the grace period at the site is 10 minutes.” Therefore my overstay of 5 minutes at the end of my parking period is within the Operator’s own stated grace period and should not be considered any form of overstay.


With regard to the 7 minute period before I bought a ticket, driving to and from the parking space is not parking, the ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked.


Furthermore, the BPA CoP states “You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go.” I consider that 7 minutes is a reasonable amount of time to find a space (in a car park with no marked bays), park, read the signage and purchase a ticket.


The Operator has confirmed in it’s own evidence of signage that “Your contract commences 10 minutes after you have entered the car park”. Therefore, by it’s own admission, the 7 minutes between entering the car park and buying a ticket are not within the contract period.




Anything to tweak here do you think?

Coupon-mad

I appealed the parking ticket on the grounds that I did not think it unreasonable to leave 5 minutes late due to the circumstances, direct to Smart Parking, who rejected my appeal on the basis that my total overstay is 12 minutes.

I have since appealed to POPLA on the same grounds, Smart Parking have now responded and I have 7 days to post up to 2000 words in comments to their response

That weak appeal worries me, and the fact you 'blabbed' about the driver.

Hope you have realise what to do next time, that would have resulted in Smart Parking cancelling first time, probably with no POPLA needed? No-one here ever loses v Smart, except where they've gone and said who was driving and mucked up the POPLA appeal.

You might lose this but for goodness' sake no paying them; if you lose, ignore them.

Sooty789

Thanks Coupon-mad. Unfortunately I only read all of your advice on this site after I had already appealed to both Smart Parking directly and Popla or I would definitely not have blabbed. Hoping I can still get off on the grace period rules though!

Fruitcake

You should quote the relevant parts of the BPA CoP, Section 13 I think. It states there are two grace periods each of ten minutes so you should quote both.

Also quote the court cases and the words used if at all possible.

You need to lead the PoPLA assessor by the nose. The BPA CoP says this in section this, and that in section that.

Sooty789

Hi Coupon-mad. That's exactly what I was aiming to do but unfortunately the BPA COP only states the following rather than specifically about the 2 periods of 10 minutes (this is the whole of section 13 on grace periods):


13 Grace periods


13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a


driver who enters your car park but decides not to park,


to leave the car park within a reasonable period without


having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.


13.2 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.




13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace




period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask


what it is.


13.4 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.

Fruitcake

Current BPA CoP, Version 7 January 2018

13 Grace periods
13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.
13.2 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.
13.2.a Vehicles are not permitted to park under the grace period in spaces designated to specific users for example Blue Badge holders. At all times vehicles must have appropriate and valid permit e.g Blue Badge on display for enforcement officer to inspect.
13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 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.

Sooty789

Thank you, I'm now reading the correct version of the code and can see it all there. Will quote both grace periods in my reply