Parking eye - Cambridge Beehive centre PCN, Popla appeal

Redx

The initial time is thought to be at least 5 minutes and no more than 10 minutes unless it's due to waiting for parking spaces

The departure time is a minimum of 10 minutes

so 6 + 6 or 5 + 7 for a total of 12 minutes seems ok to me

But in your earlier appeal above it said 16, not 6, clearly a typo but important

cretoony

Great thank you! That cleared it up for me, i'll submit the appeal in a few days with the corrected information and cross my fingers and hope for the best! Cheers.

cretoony

UPDATE:

Parking eye has provided a pretty thorough 34 page document which addresses all of my points. Here's an extract regarding the grace period which was my main one

"Grace Period
Clause 13.2 of the BPA code of practice states ’…you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition
to the parking event before enforcement action is taken’. ParkingEye can confirm a grace period is given to all
motorists before a Parking Charge is issued.
In relation to clause 13.4, which 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’, this does not mean that a
second grace period must be given. The BPA has confirmed that only one grace period ought to be applied per a
motorist’s stay onsite.
ParkingEye can confirm that the grace period on site is fully compliant with the BPA code of Practice.
Further Information
ParkingEye ensures that all its signage is clear, ample, and in keeping with the British Parking Association (BPA)
regulations.


The signage at this site demonstrates adequate colour contrast between the text and the backgrounds advised
in the BPA Code of Practice, you will note the colour contrast at this site is black text on white/yellow
background.
As the images show, the vehicle did not have its headlights on when entering the car park. We contend that
there was clearly enough daylight for the motorist to be confident driving without the use of headlights, and
therefore the signage would have been fully visible. (Please see Section F).
The signage on site clearly sets out the terms and conditions and states that;
"By parking, waiting or otherwise remaining within this private car park, you agree to comply with these
terms and conditions and are authorised to park, only if you follow these terms and conditions"
"If you fail to comply, you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking"
All signs that pertain to the general terms and conditions of parking contain text which explains that, “[…] by
entering this private car park, you [each motorist] consent, for the purpose of car park management, to: the
capturing of photographs of the vehicle and registration by the ANPR cameras […] and to the processing of this
data […]”. In turn, consent is also provided so as to allow ParkingEye to make a request for registered keeper
from the DVLA “where the Parking Contract is not adhered to”. The wording used clearly details that the
Parking Contract in question commences when the motorist “enters” the car park and that the data from the
ANPR system will be used to enable ParkingEye to take enforcement action against those who breach the
parking terms and conditions in operation.


ParkingEye operates a grace period 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. These grace periods are
sufficient for this purpose and are fully compliant with the BPA code of practice.
You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is
extravagant, unfair or unreasonable. In this regard, ParkingEye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the
matter of ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in ParkingEye’s favour and concerned the
value of our Parking Charges.
The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to
be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to
be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’.
In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of
Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by ParkingEye, and the Justices note that, “The
charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of
practice”.

Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common
practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to
impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that
motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount
of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.”
ParkingEye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position
that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable. "

They provided a sitemap showing where all the signs are located on the site but i still think my point might still stand that there are locations where the signs are not visible in the north park of the carpark behind the trees where the car was parked. hxxps://imgur.com/a/hUtjSkN Is that debatable or not worth arguing? They provided a signed witness statement from the landowner (railway pension nominees, weird) and a few pages on reasons why they are the country's leaders with use of ANPR cameras etc etc.

Here is another quote from their introduction summary

Time Allowed 3 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds
Time In Car Park 3 hours 12 minutes 37 seconds

Rules and Conditions
This site is a 3-hour maximum free stay customer car park as clearly stated on the signage (enclosed). We have
included a signage plan showing that there are signs situated at the entrance, exit and throughout the car park
displaying the terms and conditions of the site.

Evidence G
Please find enclosed a witness statement signed on behalf of the landowner showing that on the date of the
parking event ParkingEye had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle.
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
Clause 13.2 of the BPA code of practice states ’…you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition
to the parking event before enforcement action is taken’. ParkingEye can confirm a grace period is given to all
motorists before a Parking Charge is issued.

In relation to clause 13.4, which 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’, this does not mean that a
second grace period must be given. The BPA has confirmed that only one grace period ought to be applied per a
motorist’s stay onsite.

ParkingEye can confirm that the grace period on site is fully compliant with the BPA code of Practice.

Sounds like they have done this at the site before and seem pretty confident in this. Any suggestions what i can comment? Not feeling very hopeful...

Ralph-y

"In relation to clause 13.4, which 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’, this does not mean that a
second grace period must be given. The BPA has confirmed that only one grace period ought to be applied per a
motorist’s stay onsite.
ParkingEye can confirm that the grace period on site is fully compliant with the BPA code of Practice."




wrong wrong and wrong......


lies lies and lies.


while awaiting further advice complain to the BPA re this.


Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

This is normal and 30-50 pages is also normal for P/EYE at POPLA stage.
It is not thorough; it is a regurgitated template. Of course they've done this at the Beehive Centre hundreds of times, I've seen POPLA appeals all the same from there (and I've been there myself when my student kids lived in Cambridge):

https://imgur.com/a/hUtjSkN

You must use your 2000 characters (not 2000 words, BTW, so it's very limited) to state clearly that it was busy because (it was a weekend? sale time? Summer holidays?) and it took you 4 or 5 minutes to find a place to park after driving round the fairly large site, and that the tarmac width of the aisle between each row of spaces is narrow, such that you had to wait while vehicles exited/turned and pedestrians were walking, before driving up and down each row, before eventually finding an empty space and parking then reading the signs.

As such, this is an observation period and it is not unreasonable to take 4/5 mins to find a space. Thus, the car was actually only parked for 3 hours an no more and the 'grace period' at the end of the allowed parking time was well under the mandatory ten minutes.

Go to town on why it was busy and specify those minutes (i.e. make them up like I just did) so POPLA see a LESS than 10 mins grace period remained, at the end.

Also point out if ANY of the signs said '3 hours parking' as opposed to 'STAY'.

cretoony

Okay, I'll write up a draft shortly. They have included photos of 3 signs which say 3 hours max stay and seem fairly up to date but i will focus on the amount of time it took parking and leaving because i believe the camera is located right at the roundabout entrance which you must queue through traffic leaving the carpark to reach which is actually why it took so long leaving the carpark (and always does)

Coupon-mad

That is another good point.

The cameras are not at the entrance to the car park - they are positioned out on an approach road and roundabout - AND it was busy so those two things together explain the 7/8 mins to leave (blah blah...NEVER CALL IT A '12 MIN' OVERSTAY!!).

At all times, split it into the two periods, keeping the 2nd one under 10 mins.

cretoony

Update:

So the POPLA appeal was unsuccessful. I had a reply from Dunelm who i visited on the day who seemed like they might help out but they needed a receipt or a screenshot from my bank but I paid in cash and don't have a receipt so that's not very helpful. I guess i wait for the LBCCC from parking eye now?

Decision: Unsuccessful
Assessor Name: Adele Brophy
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has advised that the operator has not complied with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice and has not allowed a grace period. The appellant has advised that it took six minutes before the vehicle was able to be parked due to a build up of traffic. The appellant has advised that at no time was the driver made aware that the observation time had started when they were in the queue and not past the entrance threshold. The appellant has advised that due to narrow lanes and paring spaces event if a driver returns to their vehicle within time, they are prevented from leaving immediately due to queues and restricted space. The appellant has advised that the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice, and it is suggested that the operator does not have a proprietary interest in the land. The appellant has advised that signage is hidden and not seen so no contract can be entered into or formed.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that, the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has provided a copy of the notice to keeper; after reviewing this I am satisfied that; the operator has met with the requirements of PoFA 2012. The terms and conditions of the site are, “maximum stay 3 hours (no return within 1 hour). Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a parking charge of: £85”. The operator issued a PCN due to not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket or remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras monitor the car park in question. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 13:00 and exiting the site at 16:13. The images captured by the ANPR cameras confirm that the appellant’s vehicle remained on site for a total of three hours twelve minutes. The appellant has questioned the operator’s authority to operate on the land. In response to this, the operator has provided a copy of a witness statement, after reviewing the document I am satisfied that this complies with the BPA Code of Practice guidelines and I am satisfied that the operator has the authority of the landowner to operate on the land. The appellant has advised that signage is hidden and not seen so no contract can be entered into or formed. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows, “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states, “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”. POPLA is an evidence-based service, without any evidence being provided to cast a doubt on that provided by the operator I can only work on the basis that the evidence of the signage is accurate. After reviewing the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the signage at the location is clear. The appellant has advised that the operator has not complied with the BPA Code of Practice and has not allowed a grace period. The appellant has advised that it took six minutes before the vehicle was able to be parked due to a build-up of traffic. The appellant has advised that at no time was the driver made aware that the observation time had started when they were in the queue and not past the entrance threshold. The appellant has advised that due to narrow lanes and parking spaces event if a driver returns to their vehicle within time, they are prevented from leaving immediately due to queues and restricted space. Section 13.4 of the BPA code of practice, advises, “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”. 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 advised the motorist has utilised the site, the motorist entered the site, and the vehicle left after three hours twelve minutes. Therefore, I am satisfied the motorist has entered into a contract the with operator and was therefore required to comply with the terms and conditions. After reviewing the evidence and comments provided by both the appellant and the operator, I consider twelve minutes to be in excess of a reasonable grace period, for a motorist to enter the site, read the terms and conditions, and leave at the end of the contract. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions of parking. By remaining within the site, the motorist accepted the terms and conditions. On this occasion, by remaining in excess of the maximum allowed duration, the motorist has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site and as such, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly.

The_Deep

This is not a fine, it is an invoice from an ex-clamper for thee damage they allege you caused them when you did what you did. You do not owe them a penny unless a judge says so.

Their signs are rubbish, have you read this?

[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT] [FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies[/FONT]

pustit

You mention Dunelm but their shop is not in the Beehive centre.
This event was a long time back but can you remember other stores you might have visited actually in the Beehive Centre. If so you might have bank records of a transaction