PCN Appeal turned down?

pbb76

Hi All,

Just had an email back from Parking Eye rejecting my appeal (following the template provided on the board here).

The PCN is for parking for 3hrs 19mins, when 3 was paid for. I thought from reading the template, there is an 'allowed' period of 20 minutes grace?

They now say I can appeal to POPLA and extended the discount period another 14 days.

Do I bite the bullet and pay or is it worth going down the POPLA route?

Thanks!

Quentin

Popla of course would be the advice here. But it's your call

See the newbies FAQ thread for advice on popla appeals (#3 there)

KeithP

Appeal to PoPLA following the guidance provided in post #3 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

fisherjim

Of course they rejected it they don't make money by cancelling their ridiculous charges.


Your aim was to get a POPLA code anyway, why wouldn't you use it?



Don't send in your appeal without getting it checked over on here first.

Coupon-mad

The PCN is for parking for 3hrs 19mins, when 3 was paid for. I thought from reading the template, there is an 'allowed' period of 20 minutes grace?

No, there is no '20 minutes' as such and I wish people wouldn't post that and lump it together. It makes newbies like you focus on it wrongly. SEPARATE the times.

You can paint that picture in a POPLA appeal by splitting the 19 minutes, into what happened before you paid and what happened after, and why it took a few minutes for each activity.

Can you tell how many minutes were spent before you paid, and how many after expiry of paid time (i.e. do you have the PDTicket with times to compare the ANPR times)?

What are those minutes, either side?

If you do not know, ask ParkingEye or log in on their website and see if that is shown (not just the ANPR times, you need the ticket time).

BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING RUSHING INTO POPLA, WITH NO MENTION OF HOW YOUR COMPLAINT TO THE RETAILER/HOTEL/HOSPITAL LANDOWNER IS GOING, FIRST?

pbb76

Thanks for all the replies, I didn't get any updates of replies by email, so wasn't sure I had any - but thank you again, really appreciate it.

The biggest issue is going to be that the parking was paid for using an app, so its going to be hard to disprove who was or wasnt driving I would think. But anyways.

The car park in question isn't for any adjacent business usage, the car was parked there and the family visited a business 10 mins walk away. The reason for the lateness was waiting for a space upon arrival, say 5-10 mins of waiting for a space to be vacated.

Then on the way back the young daughter decided she needed a toilet without which, the parking time would have been met pretty comfortably.

I'm not sure who would be responsible for the car park - I would guess the land owner?

@coupon-mad

The PCN shows arrival as 13:54 and the payment receipt states 'parking started' at 14:10 (again, due to waiting for a space) and was paid for 3 hours.

The departure time on the PCN is 17:14, so just 4 mins after the payment period.

Does this help with any advice for the next course of action please?

Thank you!

Fruitcake

You do not have to prove who was or wasn't driving; that's their job. There is no way for the scammers to know who was driving unless you are daft enough to tell them.

Split the 19 minutes into three. XX minutes driving around/waiting for a space.
Quote Parking Eye versus Ms X at them where the judge said that driving around looking for a space is not parking.

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

YY minutes for the driver to find the signs, read them, read the instructions on the pay machine, and pay.
Quote the relevant part of the BPA CoP

ZZ minutes to leave the obviously busy car park after the parking event had ended.
Quote the (different) relevant part of the BPA CoP.

Throw in all the other relevant points as well from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

pbb76

Thank you, I'll give it a whirl!

Fruitcake wrote: »

You do not have to prove who was or wasn't driving; that's their job. There is no way for the scammers to know who was driving unless you are daft enough to tell them.

Split the 19 minutes into three. XX minutes driving around/waiting for a space.
Quote Parking Eye versus Ms X at them where the judge said that driving around looking for a space is not parking.


YY minutes for the driver to find the signs, read them, read the instructions on the pay machine, and pay.
Quote the relevant part of the BPA CoP

ZZ minutes to leave the obviously busy car park after the parking event had ended.
Quote the (different) relevant part of the BPA CoP.

Throw in all the other relevant points as well from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Coupon-mad

Re grace periods, I prefer to go for breaking the 'overstay' down into 16 minutes* and then 4 minutes (or whatever) setting it out like this as POPLA are more likely to be persuaded, IMHO:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75812666#Comment_75812666

Splitting the 'arrival time' section from the 'leaving time' section.

* On arrival your explanation of why this took an apparent (unproven, alleged by the separate unsynchronised ANPR system) 16 minutes, would be:

- it was very busy because (it was Easter? Saturday? Half term? Bank Holiday weekend?) and the car park was heaving so it actually took some 5 - 10 minutes before the driver could even get a space when vacated by another car

- were you waiting for a P&Child bay, if so, say they were at a premium and took longer, but you had no choice as you had a child & buggy to unload

- the bays are narrow so you could not just park in any other bay, not that you saw any free during that ten minutes anyway

- as you had a child with you, once parked you had to unstrap her and set her buggy up or walk slowly, holding her hand, to the nearest PDT machine

- then you read the signs and realised you would have to register & set up an app

- whilst supervising the child, you went through the convoluted set up of a new app, which involves about ten steps just to register, let alone apply for parking. This alone took some 5 - 10 minutes in its own right and would have been quicker if you could have paid in coins, or if you'd already been registered, but you were not and if registration takes this long then the operator needs to allow a longer period of grace for first-time users.

- then you could finally pay for parking, and that was when the contract actually started, as confirmed in the Court of Appeal recently when NCP lost a case where their Lordships held as binding fact, that in a PDT machine/ANPR (two system) car park, the contract starts 'when the green button is pressed':

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/854.html

18, 19 and 20 from that judgment make it clear that the offer and acceptance takes place when the paying motorist inserts the coins & hits the green button (which in the case of paying by phone would be the point when the concluding texts are exchanged, surely, when the bargain is actually made & accepted):

English law, of course, generally adopts an objective approach when deciding what has been agreed in a contractual context. Here, it seems to me that, taken together, the tariff board and the statement that "overpayments" were accepted and no change given indicated, looking at matters objectively, that NCP was willing to grant an hour's parking in exchange for coins worth at least £1.40. In the hypothetical example, the precise figure was settled when the customer inserted her pound coin and 50p piece into the machine and then elected to press the green button rather than cancelling the transaction. The best analysis would seem to be that the contract was brought into being when the green button was pressed. On that basis, the pressing of the green button would represent acceptance by the customer of an offer by NCP to provide an hour's parking in return for the coins that the customer had by then paid into the machine. At all events, there is no question of the customer having any right to repayment of 10p. The contract price was £1.50.

This is the contractual analysis in the hypothetical example where the customer has only a pound coin and a 50p piece, and therefore has no alternative but to pay £1.50 if she wishes to park in the car park. However, the analysis is the same even if it is possible for the customer to obtain the right coins, for example by obtaining change from another user of the car park. If the customer nevertheless chooses to insert £1.50 and presses the green button, it remains the case that she has accepted the offer to provide an hour's parking at that price.

This analysis may be slightly different from that of the UT, which referred to an offer by NCP to grant the right to park for up to one hour in return for paying an amount between £1.40 and £2.09. In fact the offer made by NCP is more specific, to grant the right to park for an hour in return for the coins shown by the machine as having been inserted when the green light flashes. That is the offer which the customer accepts.

This confirms what we already know to be trite law from Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking.

Given that NCP, and other PPCs, often use PDT machines alongside ANPR, this is a binding decision that can be used to support defences and POPLA appeals which argue that the contract in a PDT machine car park (unlike a free retail park) cannot possibly begin upon driving in, not least because at that point the driver has no idea whether the tariff is 50p or £50 until they stand in front of the machine & signs.

And if it was £50, they'd leave having not accepted the offer.

Thankyou NCP for wasting a silly sum of money on an appeal that has produced a Court of Appeal transcript we can use as binding case law.

Throw all of the above at it, as you need to convince POPLA about that first 16 minutes.

pbb76

Thank you for this really detailed reply - very much appreciated!

I'll update this thread when I get a response!

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Re grace periods, ....

The_Deep

Do not forget to attack the signs in your PoPLA appeal.

IMO, PE signs leave much to be desired. I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

and enlist the support of your MP as they are obviously trying to scam you.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
IMO, PE signs leave much to be desired. I doubt that many judges would agree that they are capable of forming a contract, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading