Holy Trinity Church Newquay PCN

Lobsterfish

HI there, i've just received a PCN from Parking Eye from Holy Trinity Church in Newquay.

The Letter has ANPR of the driver entering and leaving the car park having paid for 1 hr parking. The total time take in the car park was 1:11 mins. I have the ticket that actually shows that we paid for parking 3 minutes after entering the car park. So it appears they want to charge me 100 quid for overstaying by about 7 minutes.

Is it worth contesting this? I understand there should be a grace period for entering and leaving the car park. Unfortunately i live no where near Newquay so would be unable to go and look the signage as we entered.

Thanks.

Fruitcake

Lobsterfish wrote: »

HI there, i've just received a PCN from Parking Eye from Holy Trinity Church in Newquay.

The Letter has ANPR of The Driver entering and leaving the car park having paid for 1 hr parking. The total time take in the car park was 1:11 mins. I have the ticket that actually shows that we paid for parking 3 minutes after entering the car park. So it appears they want to charge me 100 quid for overstaying by about 7 minute.

Is it worth contesting this? I understand there should be a grace period for entering and leaving the car park. Unfortunately i live no where near Newquay so would be unable to go and look the signage as we entered.

Thanks.

I have corrected your post for you. You should now correct your version. Do this before you do anything else. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper who are two different people.

Also remove the comments in brackets about the dog as that does not help your case.

Next, send the appeal template in blue from the sticky thread for NEWBIES.
Read up on how to make a PoPLA appeal after that using post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Check the BPA CoP where you will find there are two grace periods to use in your PoPLA appeal.
Also check to see if the NTK meets the requirements of the PoFA 2012; in other words, see if you have a "golden ticket" as this would be a winning point at PoPLA as long as the driver's identity is never revealed.

Lobsterfish

Fruitcake wrote: »

I have corrected your post for you. You should now correct your version. Do this before you do anything else. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper who are two different people.

Also remove the comments in brackets about the dog as that does not help your case.

Next, send the appeal template in blue from the sticky thread for NEWBIES.
Read up on how to make a PoPLA appeal after that using post 3 of the NEWBIES.

Check the BPA CoP where you will find there are two grace periods yo use in your PoPLA appeal.
Also check to see if the NTK meets the requirements of the PoFA 2012; in other words, see if you have a "golden ticket" as this would be a winning point at PoPLA as long as the driver's identity is never revealed.

Thanks. Made the edits and will have a read.

Coupon-mad

Easy to beat at POPLA as long as you never describe the overstay as '11 minutes'. No using that phrase anywhere! Split it and POPLA will be with you all the way IMHO.

Search the forum for POPLA split grace periods and read some done before, and copy. Use the search this forum function at the top of the thread list (not this page, this is your thread alone).

Change the default forum search to SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS - never as 'threads'.

We also advise checking if you have what we call a 'golden ticket' first - search the NEWBIES thread (control & F on your keyboard this time, a different type of search) for golden as the keyword and you will see an example.

The_Deep

PE signs are usually rubbish, read this

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

Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

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

Lobsterfish

Hi there, here is a draft of the POPLA appeal from the keeper.

Dear POPLA,
As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges and have this PCN cancelled 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 HOLY TRINITY CHURCH NEWQUAY TR7 1LS 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:

{link}

“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':
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 manoeuvre 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 3 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. 4 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 4 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 7 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 120 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 7 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 lamposts, walls 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.

A lot of it taken from various threads on here talking about split grace periods. Would it be possible for a critique? The keeper has a copy of the actual ticket receipt showing the time take to purchase if that is of any use in adding to the appeal?

Coupon-mad

The keeper has a copy of the actual ticket receipt showing the time take to purchase if that is of any use in adding to the appeal?

Yes, add that as a scan embedded into the actual appeal, not as an extra document to upload.

Make it easy for the assessor - one document uploaded the appeal, with such pics in it.

That is a good POPLA appeal for a split grace periods case and should win, but P/Eye will likely put you through the entire process and waste your/their time by contesting it.

Umkomaas

You need to get your ducks lined up correctly.

I have the ticket that actually shows that we paid for parking 3 minutes after entering the car park.

I can declare that it took 3 minutes before we were able to park

In this case, therefore, the 4 minutes taken before being able to park and read the new signs at this particular site is a reasonable period.

Which is it? If the ticket says 3 minutes, then that’s your absolute evidence of how long it took to park, read the signs, pay for the parking.

The total time take in the car park was 1:11 mins.

So you’re now looking at an 8 minute ‘overstay’, which sits well within the minimum grace period mandated by the BPA.

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 120 minutes, thus there was no parking contravention at all.

Eh? 1: 11 minutes is 71 minutes. Where has 120 minutes come from? You really must get your figures to stack up accurately. If you’ve simply copied and dumped some other appeal from the forum without a thorough proofreading, then you need to think about those you are expecting to plough through all the verbiage and sort out your case for you.

There are so few volunteers on this forum (fewer than the number of fingers on two hands) and the sheer volume of cases we are being expected to deal with every day (around 100 different cases) - it’s relentless!

Please thoroughly read anything you’re throwing onto the thread and make sure it reads correctly, stacks up and reflects absolutely your particular case.

Lobsterfish

Just received parking eyes "evidence" pdf in my popla admin. Which includes the landowner authority. Along with 4yr old pictures of the signage in the carpark and this is their statement about the grace period:

"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."

I have drafted my rebuttal (with help from some other threads) and got it down to below 2000chars.

POPLA Assessor,
Observations from P.E.’s evidence pack;
1. P.E. no acknowledgement of exit grace period
2. P.E. have produced no such evidence of landowner authority
3. Signage out of date and not readable
Response
1. P.E. acknowledge they have a minimum grace period on entry of 10 minutes for the driver to agree to the parking terms and conditions. In this case, 3 minutes were taken by the driver before being able to park and read the signs.
P.E. have not however acknowledged there is an exit grace period; outlined in BPA CoP [Jan 2019] s13.2 & s13.4, which states that there is an exit grace period (minimum of 10 minutes) for the driver to leave the car park after the parking contract has ended. In this case, 8 minutes were taken before leaving the car park.
2. P.E. have provided only a written statement in Section G, signed & dated 05.11.2019 on behalf of. This statement does not show any details of contract with the landowner, nor does it provide evidence of exemptions in accordance with the request (section 2 in the appeal). As per the BPA CoP [Jan 2019] s7.3 there are a five points the written authorisation must address, none of which are provided in the witness statement from P.E. Furthermore, the written statement does not provide ANY reference to the specific address or location of the site, but simply refers to it as ‘Holy Trinity Church Newquay, which may be another site within the UK which bears the same name.
3. P. E. have provided photos of signage in Section F. (page 27-28) taken in June 2015, and are over 4 years old, and therefore are not representative of the current state of the signage. Pic 3 (page 29) was taken in May 2018. Furthermore, the terms on the bottom of ‘Sign Type 1b’ (page 29) are near impossible to read when colour printed from the pack. If the signs are not readable on an A4 piece of paper, it is hard to comprehend reading these above eye level when erected on site.

Could anyone critique?

MistyZ

Looks mainly okay to me, the eagle-eyed more experienced ones may find things you could improve.

Meanwhile, there's an unfinished sentence: '2. P.E. have provided only a written statement in Section G, signed & dated 05.11.2019 on behalf of.'

Possibly paragraph 3 could be more assertive e.g. how about '..... are near impossible to read when the close-up photo was colour printed. At the site they were way up above eye-level and were not legible.'

Coupon-mad

Looks good.