Grace Period

KeithP

Post #5 of the NEWBIES thread explains commonly used acronyms.

Failing that - google is your friend.

Agent_Gibbs

KeithP wrote: »

Post #5 of the NEWBIES thread explains commonly used acronyms.

Failing that - google is your friend.

Got it - thanks

MistyZ

Agent_Gibbs wrote: »

The following has come back from PE via the POPLA website

Authority ParkingEye can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ParkingEye and the motorist will be enforceable by ParkingEye as a party to that contract.

Grace Period ParkingEye operates a minimum grace period of ten minutes or more on all sites which gives the motorist time to enter a car park, park, and establish whether, or not, they wish to be bound by the terms and conditions of parking.

A grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site which is fully compliant with clauses 13.2 and 30.2 of BPA code of practice which 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.

I now have 7 days to reply and any comments must relate to the grounds of appeal I submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA. What is the next step - do I reply back as the keeper reaffirming my position or sit it out and wait for POPLA to give their ruling?

So that's their 'evidence'? Short and sweet!

No copy of contract so to my mind it's simply an assertion, they have supplied no evidence of a valid contract whatsoever.

Nice that they basically did the work for you: 'a grace period of 10 minutes or more is in place at this site'. Yep, and as was fully explained in the appeal, a mere 2 minutes more was required given how busy the car park was.

Agent_Gibbs

I've now replied back to POPLA with my comments regarding PE evidence and I think I've pointed out a extra bits that PE have kindly offered up in their Operator Information and Evidence.
Now it's just a case of wait and see.

Agent_Gibbs

Just had this from POPLA -

Your appeal was successful
As your appeal was successful, your parking charge is not effective and you do not need to take any further action.

Thank you ALL for your help :beer:

Redx

well done


strange that PE continued with this in the light of the above comments etc

Agent_Gibbs

Hope this proves useful to anyone

Decision - Successful
Assessor Name - ***********
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket, by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering your registration details via the terminal, in accordance with the terms and conditions.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant states that the driver entered the car park and tried to find a parking space, but they were all full. They explain that the 12 minutes times to exit the car park was due to it being busy and getting delayed by other vehicles trying to turn around in the car park. They say that the vehicle was not parked and the driver exited after realising they were unable to park. The appellant has provided additional evidence for the appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the driver is unknown, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. The appellant has been identified as the keeper; as such, I will be considering their liability for the PCN as the keeper. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage. The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 10:17, and leaving at 10:30. They have remained in the car park for 12 minutes. While I appreciate the evidence provided by the operator, I cannot see that they have disproved that the time in the car park was spent doing anything else other than attempting to park. I cannot see that the driver has made use of the car park other than to try and find a space. I find that 12 minutes is a reasonable amount of time to attempt to park and exit. As such, I conclude that the PCN has not been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I acknowledge that the appellant has raised further grounds of appeal; however, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, it is not necessary to respond further.

Coupon-mad

The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 10:17, and leaving at 10:30. They have remained in the car park for 12 minutes. While I appreciate the evidence provided by the operator, I cannot see that they have disproved that the time in the car park was spent doing anything else other than attempting to park.

I cannot see that the driver has made use of the car park other than to try and find a space. I find that 12 minutes is a reasonable amount of time to attempt to park and exit.

Well done to that Assessor! And to you, for the win.

:T