Parking Eye Ticket

shaftonred

Could someone offer some guideance with this, Parking Eye have stated that they have received no payment despite me having proof of payment, albeit paying for a total of 3hrs and ANPR Cameras showing a total of 3hrs 14mins from arriving to leaving.










I was looking at POPLA appeals on the newbies and other areas of the forum which appear pretty detailed, i was thinking that the main parts of the appeal will be;
1) POFA 2012
2) Grace Period as per IPC code of practice
3) Their response stating that no payment has been made when in fact I have proof of payment


I have read many posts which detail a lot of other areas but surely with the proof I have and the above points should show to be a strong case?


Thanks for helping

Umkomaas

Parking Eye have stated that they have received no payment despite me having proof of payment, albeit paying for a total of 3hrs and ANPR Cameras showing a total of 3hrs 14mins from arriving to leaving.

Likely to be a VRM typo, or incorrect VRM (another family vehicle's VRM maybe?) or no VRM input.

1) POFA 2012

In what context? How are you intending to use PoFA? I've not read right back over the thread, you may have already covered this, but it would be useful to check it out here too.

2) Grace Period as per IPC code of practice

That's no help to you. PE are not IPC members.

3) Their response stating that no payment has been made when in fact I have proof of payment

If any of the VRM scenarios I've suggested might be the issue, then POPLA will find against you, unless it's very minimal error like a single digit mis-typed, or a zero has been input instead of the letter 'O' (or vice versa).

shaftonred

Likely to be a VRM typo, or incorrect VRM (another family vehicle's VRM maybe?) or no VRM input.



Double checked this and definately entered the correcct Licence Plate Number and showing the same on the PCN


Quote:
1) POFA 2012
In what context? How are you intending to use PoFA? I've not read right back over the thread, you may have already covered this, but it would be useful to check it out here too.



They are chasing me as the registered owner rather than the driver... is this not right?


Quote:
2) Grace Period as per IPC code of practice
That's no help to you. PE are not IPC members.



OK but would you still play on the fact that the pictures show a car arriving and leaving but dont take into account how busy the car park or pay machine is?


Quote:
3) Their response stating that no payment has been made when in fact I have proof of payment
If any of the VRM scenarios I've suggested might be the issue, then POPLA will find against you, unless it's very minimal error like a single digit mis-typed, or a zero has been input instead of the letter 'O' (or vice versa).


Again the payment has been made with the correct reg number?

shaftonred

I've also read that as they are members if the BPA the grace period should be 10mins for arriving and 10 mins for leaving as per sections 13.2 and 13.4...

Umkomaas

1) POFA 2012
In what context? How are you intending to use PoFA? I've not read right back over the thread, you may have already covered this, but it would be useful to check it out here too.

They are chasing me as the registered owner rather than the driver... is this not right?

They are not chasing you as the 'registered owner', there's no register of owners. In the absence of them knowing the identity of the driver, they are chasing you as the 'registered keeper' which they are perfectly entitled to do so under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), provided they meet the strict requirements of that Act.

Does your NtK comply with PoFA, or not?

2) Grace Period as per IPC code of practice
That's no help to you. PE are not IPC members.

OK but would you still play on the fact that the pictures show a car arriving and leaving but dont take into account how busy the car park or pay machine is?

Yes of course, but using the correct Code of Practice - that of the BPA, of which PE are a member. I would have thought your basic research would have revealed that.

3) Their response stating that no payment has been made when in fact I have proof of payment
If any of the VRM scenarios I've suggested might be the issue, then POPLA will find against you, unless it's very minimal error like a single digit mis-typed, or a zero has been input instead of the letter 'O' (or vice versa).

Again the payment has been made with the correct reg number?

If you're confident in that you need to get to see what PE have as proof. Send them a SAR to get access to all details they hold about you and your vehicle's VRM. Ask especially for their payment machine logs for the times surrounding your vehicle's parking time at that particular car park. They might be a bit difficult about this, quoting DPA breach if they reveal all the other vehicle VRMs, but say you're happy to receive the log with other VRMs partially redacted. (You're trying to find a VRM that closely resembles yours at the time of the ticket issued).

https://legalbeagles.info/library/guides_and_letters/court/subject-access-request/

Just on the basis of the 14 minute overstay, are you sure they're not chasing you for that 'contravention'? What does the NtK state (exactly as printed) was the contravention - often PE state an either/or.

shaftonred

Umkomaas wrote: »

They are not chasing you as the 'registered owner', there's no register of owners. In the absence of them knowing the identity of the driver, they are chasing you as the 'registered keeper' which they are perfectly entitled to do so under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4), provided they meet the strict requirements of that Act.

Does your NtK comply with PoFA, or not?


Yes of course, but using the correct Code of Practice - that of the BPA, of which PE are a member. I would have thought your basic research would have revealed that.


If you're confident in that you need to get to see what PE have as proof. Send them a SAR to get access to all details they hold about you and your vehicle's VRM. Ask especially for their payment machine logs for the times surrounding your vehicle's parking time at that particular car park. They might be a bit difficult about this, quoting DPA breach if they reveal all the other vehicle VRMs, but say you're happy to receive the log with other VRMs partially redacted. (You're trying to find a VRM that closely resembles yours at the time of the ticket issued).

https://legalbeagles.info/library/guides_and_letters/court/subject-access-request/

Just on the basis of the 14 minute overstay, are you sure they're not chasing you for that 'contravention'? What does the NtK state (exactly as printed) was the contravention - often PE state an either/or.

I've left the POFA section to be honest as I dont think this is an issue.


With regards to the IPC / BPA its because I have recently fought another one with the IPC and won so just a case of the wrong body mentioned... I have referred to the BPA and their code of conduct.


Finally the PCN doesnt state anything on the front page other than a Parking charge amount of £100, on the reverse its states the arrival and departure times and then says "By either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage, the parking charge is now payable to parking eye"....


I have appealed with Popla on the grace period where they recommend 10 mins upon arrival and to leave as acceptable.. given i was approx 14 mins in total i should be covered... also explained that the pictures are arriving into the car park and doesnt take into account finding a spot or queuing for the ticket machine. I also provided evidence to the signage of which there was a big one next to the ticket machine and it would have taken around 5 mins to read it all given the amount of information on there and small text. I am hoping that the grace period secures this being quashed.

shaftonred

Wohoo!!!! Success against the parking cowboys at last!!! Popla decision below.... thanks for the help


Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Matthew Yorke

Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that it issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) because the appellant either did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted.


Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that when they arrived at the car park, they had to wait for other motorists who were trying to park. The appellant says upon parking they and their wife got their children out of the car, and joined the queue for the parking meter, which was busy. The appellant states having waited for several minutes, they decided it would be quicker to pay by phone. The appellant says they subsequently took a photo of the sign next to the machine and made a payment of £6.20 for three hours. The appellant states they returned to the car prior to their ticket expiring, and having removed their son’s coat, strapped him into the seat and gave him a drink they left the car park. The appellant has raised the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice in relation to grace periods. The appellant says each event must be a minimum of 10 minutes, and as per the evidence it took them nine minutes to find a space and pay. The appellant states neither of the times are unreasonable or excessive and the pictures do not take into account how busy the car park was upon arrival. The appellant says when they appealed to the operator, the operator rejected the appeal and said that no payment had been made, when clearly this is not accurate. The appellant states grace periods were not adhered to by the operator and the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras show the arrival and departure times only within the photos, not how busy the car park was. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal.


Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator’s case is that it issued a PCN because the appellant either did not purchase the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted. The site operates using an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. The cameras captured the appellant’s vehicle registration, XXXX XXX, entering the site at 12:27, and exiting at 15:41. The total period of stay was three hours and 14 minutes. For a contract to be entered into there are a few things that need to happen. Firstly, there needs to be an offer, which must be reasonably brought to the motorist’s attention. Within parking this is done through the signage at the site, which sets out the terms and conditions. For a motorist to be bound by a contract, they must have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the offer. In this case the appellant has entered the site, had to wait for other motorists to park. The appellant says that they then queued up for the payment machine but decided to pay by phone after queuing up for a few minutes. The operator has provided evidence to show that the appellant made a successful payment at 12:36. This is nine minutes after the appellant entered the site. I am satisfied that the appellant has taken reasonable steps to attempt to make a payment as soon as they could. Upon reviewing the evidence of the signage, I cannot see any indication that motorist’s time begins upon them entering the site. Therefore, I am satisfied that the appellant’s parking time started at the point they purchased their ticket at 12:36. This ticket expired at 15:36. Section 13.4 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice 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 appellant has left the site five minutes after their ticket expired. The BPA Code of Practice states that the grace period should be a minimum of 10 minutes at the end of the contract. The appellant has therefore left the site within this specified grace period. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that the appellant has not complied with the terms and conditions and the PCN has been issued correctly. The operator has failed to demonstrate in its evidence that the motorist did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Therefore, I cannot determine if the PCN has been issued correctly or not. I have not considered any other grounds for appeal, as they do not have any bearing on my decision. Accordingly, I must allow the appeal.

Coupon-mad

Nice one! :T

Please also post this for posterity in POPLA DECISIONS and add paragraph breaks!