Parking eye - Cambridge Beehive centre PCN, Popla appeal

cretoony

See post #14 for latest update, Evidence from parking eye has been provided for the POPLA appeal

Hello there,

Got a £85 fine for staying 12 minutes longer than the 3 hours max stay in the free carpark after shopping all day at the beehive centre from the lovely folks at parking eye. Appealed with a few standard points and an editted template from the noobie thread thinking they would leave it and looks like they returned a cookie cutter response:

"We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. This site is a maximum stay
car park, as per the terms and conditions as detailed on the signage. Your appeal has
been rejected on the basis that the maximum time allowed was exceeded."

Had a look around the fourm and found this thread with someone a few years ago in a similar situtation: hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5011713&highlight=beehive&page=2#topofpage

Most of it seems to apply but its five years old now, are the beavis case and the points about ANPR accuracy stilll accurate? (post no 31#).

If so, do you think a slightly editted version with the "6 : Misleading Information given on PCN & PCRN" removed would suffice? I also don't have photos of signage but i could probably find them on streetview. All the signs that are very high up and hard to read in the carpark.

Eg. (basically the same appeal with a few minor edits):

Removed to save space as now points are out of date!

Thanks in advance to anyone who read through all that!

Redx

too old , the point 1) went out the door with BEAVIS a few years ago


find a recent 2019 popla appeal where GRACE PERIODS are the main factor and use that


also check if your NTK arrived within the 14 day period of notification, if it didnt read the golden ticket stuff

Umkomaas

Do a forum search on keywords 'Beehive POPLA' to read other recent successful POPLA appeals for that site, learn from them and plagiarise as appropriate.

Let us see your next draft, don't miss your POPLA deadline - PE are litigious and will resort to court quickly if you fail at or miss your POPLA appeal window.

HOW TO USE THE FORUM SEARCH FUNCTION:

Hit your 'Back' button to get back to the forum thread list. On the bar just above the threads you'll see the 'Search' function. Click on the 'Advanced Search' button and on the following page place your keyword(s) in the 'Search By Keyword(s)' and make sure the 'Show Results As' button (at the foot of the window) is changed from 'Threads' to 'Posts'.

cretoony

Redx: Thanks, that was what i was worried about. Unfortunately, my housemate had moved the letter on arrival and i am unsure of the exact date i received it so i'm not sure if i can use the golden ticket stuff. Also, mine looked different to the example used and i found it quite confusing: hxxps://i.imgur.com/bKf8ewP.png. I've found an example that used grace periods and i will post below.

Umkomaas: Thanks for your reply, that is how i found the post i mentioned in my opening post. Unfortunately, there are not many examples of the beehive centre that are relevant and the two I found that were are from 2013 and 2014. I personally know a couple of people that have been caught out in this carpark a few minutes short as its such a large shopping centre so i hope if i do get a good template that people can use it in future.

Here is another tweaked plagiarised popla appeal draft, however, i feel like this isn't quite enough compared to other appeals? Let me know what you think...

Removed to save space as now points are out of date! Updated appeal below.

Redx

It's not private eye, that is a magazine edited by Ian Hislop

Proof read what you copy or type

Coupon-mad

Glad to see you are using the 'split grace / observation periods' wording for POPLA, but make it more clear by putting the (a) and (b) sections in capitals for those sub-headings and leaving a couple of line spaces between each of them.

'Rational' makes no sense here:

6 minutes is a [STRIKE]rational[/STRIKE] reasonable grace/observation period to enter this car park, then queue behind the moving traffic, then carefully park, then finally seek out one of the ludicrously high new signs and read it, which is the only point at which any contractual parking licence may have started (only when the driver has had a fair opportunity to read the terms and decide whether to stay, as Kelvin Reynolds stated).

Notwithstanding the BPA rules, relevant contract law also dictates that consumers must be given an opportunity to consider terms and conditions before entering into a consumer contract, especially where one of the terms is unexpected (new terms for this site)

Since when did the Beehive Centre have new signs? I've been there when a couple of my sprogs lived in Cambridge and it was 3 hrs and was always ParkingEye even then.

Finally, if you are saying that it took 6 mins to park (which is fair) then why are you wrongly saying '10 mins' here, and not the remaining six?

the Operator is alleging that the driver exceeded the parking time after the end of the parking event, by 10 minutes. This is explained by...

...As such, 10 minutes is a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended.

cretoony

Redx:

Which part is from a magazine? That link takes you to the BPA news website with an article from their news section saying "Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs says there is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this...."

Coupon-mad: Ok I removed the part about the signs being new and corrected the grammar and timings. Do you think this suffices as an improvement?

Dear POPLA,
As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN canceled on the following grounds: I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX to lodge a formal appeal against the PCN issued by Parking Eye on the XX 2019 for the alleged breach of parking conditions at The Cambridge Beehive Centre, CB1 3ET car park on the XXth XXXX 2019.
I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and kindly request that they are all considered.

1. No Grace Periods - breach of BPA CoP
2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the Operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3. Hidden signage and not seen so no contract could be entered into or formed.

1. No Grace Periods - breach of BPA CoP
The BPA’s Code of Practice states (13) that there are two grace periods: one at the end and a separate 'observation period' at the start. For the avoidance of doubt this is NOT a single period with a ceiling of just ten minutes, and the authority for this view is in this BPA article by Kelvin Reynolds, BPA Director of Corporate Affairs where he states on behalf of the BPA that there is a difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods in parking and that good practice allows for this:

hxxps://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods?fbclid=IwAR347R1ULeXKZvPz7ArWZ3hBl-5-1EV949-dc4oHbU0NQreZcvRZDrqanQg

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. Our guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.
“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”
BPA (18.5) states ''if a driver is parking with your permission they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the contract with you''.

(A) On arrival - the 'observation period':
There was traffic build upon entering this car park because it is single lane entry from a dual carriageway. The driver was unfamiliar with this site, so extra care and time were taken when entering the car park. There is also a restricted width of the car park spaces, causing difficulties in waiting for cars to maneuver to park or leave spaces, then the difficulties for the driver in the parking their own car.
I witnessed this as I was an occupant of the car (as well as the keeper). I can declare that it took 6 minutes before we were able to park, and at no time did we read any term that told us that the 'observation' time had actually started when we were in the queue and not even past the entrance threshold.
However, even if it had said that observation and grace periods must still be considered given the facts relating to each site. 6 minutes is a reasonable grace/observation period to enter this car park, then queue behind the moving traffic, then carefully park, then finally seek out one of the signs and read it, which is the only point at which any contractual parking license may have started (only when the driver has had a fair opportunity to read the terms and decide whether to stay, as Kelvin Reynolds stated).
Notwithstanding the BPA rules, relevant contract law also dictates that consumers must be given an opportunity to consider terms and conditions before entering into a consumer contract, especially where one of the terms is unexpected (new terms for this site) and onerous. POPLA Assessors have stated in recent decisions that a reasonable time period for this would be up to about 10 minutes. In this case, therefore, the 6 minutes taken before being able to park and read the new signs at this particular site is a reasonable period.


(B) On leaving - the 'grace period'
BPA's Code of Practice (13.2) 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.''
BPA (13.4) reiterates this fact: ''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.''
Given the timings shown by the images (and subtracting the reasonable time explained above, on arrival) the Operator is alleging that the driver exceeded the parking time after the end of the parking event, by 12 minutes. This is explained by the narrow lanes and parking spaces, meaning that even when a driver gets back to their car on time, they are prevented from leaving immediately due to the queues and restricted space in this site. As I was an occupant of the car I can attest that this was the case on the material date and that the driver did not actually park in a space for more than 180 minutes, thus there was no parking contravention at all.
The Operator has displayed on their PCN only the arrival and departure times from the car park. These are not the 'period of parking' although the law requires this to be stated, and to any right-thinking person, the only reason for this is to engineer an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18 - the views of MPs during the Parking CoP Bill reading) by misleading POPLA. Considering the travel time to a parking space and traveling back out of the car park the period of parking here falls comfortably within the mandatory observation and grace periods as outlined above.
As such, a minimum of 16 minutes would be a reasonable grace period to exit the car park after the parking contract has ended. The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice incorrectly. Accordingly, POPLA must allow this appeal.

2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
It is suggested that The Operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. I ask that The Operator be asked to provide proof they have the authorization at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and keepers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of a genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put ParkingEye to strict proof of full compliance:
7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorization must also set out:
a) the definition of the land on which you may operate so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
As this operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site have a right to cancellation of a charge.
It cannot be assumed just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case, I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
Operator to provide strict proof of full compliance:
Not forgetting the evidence of the various signatories are:
name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal document



3. Hidden signage and not seen so no contract could be entered into or formed.

Signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read any terms and conditions. The signage was not expected and is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. In addition, the Operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from some parking spaces. The terms appear to be displayed inadequately in letters less than half an inch high. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs. As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, with Letter Height Visibility and perspective you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder to be able to read the Terms and Conditions. The signs are sporadically placed and obscured in some areas and hidden by trees, foilage and large vehicles all over the carpark.

In the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing is transparent and expressed in plain and intelligible language and is legible.
A letter height of less than half an inch showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a pole and in crowded small print is inadequate in an outdoor car park.
Where terms on a sign are not seen and not clearly marked with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to and cannot have 'breached' an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established.
So, for this appeal, I put this Operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date at that time from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere stock examples of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
The signs relating to 'Terms and Conditions' have to be read while traveling into the site so makes their placement completely unacceptable.
They are unremarkably not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility.
I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. The judgment was binding case law from the Appeal Court and supports my argument
This was a victory for the motorist and so where terms on a sign are not seen and the area not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

KeithP

cretoony wrote: »

Which part is from a magazine?

Private Eye is a satirical magazine, but you are still insisting that they sent you a PCN:

I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX to lodge a formal appeal against the PCN issued by Private Eye on the XX 2019 for the alleged breach of parking conditions...

cretoony

Ah right. Well thanks for pointing that out, Grammarly autocorrects it. Moving on - any issues?

Redx

should say 6 minutes, which is less than the 10 minutes allowed by the BPA Cop

It definitely should not say 16 minutes

The total time added onto the parking period was 12 minutes , split into 6 minutes to park up, plus 6 minutes to leave

The BPA Cop has a reasonable period to park up ( probably no more than 10 minutes) and 10 or more minutes to depart

Do not blow it at this stage with incorrect facts

And yes its Parking Eye, a parking company, not Private Eye a satirical magazine

cretoony

Redx:
Thanks for your reply, i am trying not to blow it with the facts, i'm just a tad confused about exactly the usual grace limit timings are. Is it just ten minutes to arrive? If i only say i should be allowed a 10 minute grace period then surely my appeal will be denied as i am 12 minutes over? How about this?:

(B) On leaving - the 'grace period'
BPA's Code of Practice (13.2) 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.''
BPA (13.4) reiterates this fact: ''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.''
Given the timings shown by the images (and subtracting the reasonable time explained above, on arrival) the Operator is alleging that the driver exceeded the parking time after the end of the parking event, by 12 minutes. This is explained by the narrow lanes and parking spaces, meaning that even when a driver gets back to their car on time, they are prevented from leaving immediately due to the queues and restricted space in this site. As I was an occupant of the car I can attest that this was the case on the material date and that the driver did not actually park in a space for more than 180 minutes, thus there was no parking contravention at all.
The Operator has displayed on their PCN only the arrival and departure times from the car park. These are not the 'period of parking' although the law requires this to be stated, and to any right-thinking person, the only reason for this is to engineer an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18 - the views of MPs during the Parking CoP Bill reading) by misleading POPLA. Considering the travel time to a parking space and traveling back out of the car park the period of parking here falls comfortably within the mandatory observation and grace periods as outlined above.

As such, a minimum of 6 minutes to park up and 6 minutes to leave would be a reasonable grace period to enter and exit the car park after reading the sign, beginning the parking contract and leaving once the parking contract has ended. The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice incorrectly. Accordingly, POPLA must allow this appeal.