Holy Trinity Church Newquay PCN

Le_Kirk

The BPA has confirmed that only one grace period ought to be applied per a motorist’s stay onsite.

Is this true? This is from the BPA Code of Practice: -

13.4 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.

That seems to be saying that PE is wrong. You need to point this out to the assessor.

P.E. have not however acknowledged there is an exit grace period

They have done more than not acknowledge it, they have denied it to you.

Lobsterfish

Ok second draft more forceful on the 2nd grace period being denied.

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 Signage out of date and not readable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; and erroneously state his 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.” directly contradicted in BPA CoP [Jan 2019] s13.4, which states that there is an exit grace period (min of 10 minutes) for the driver to leave the car park after the parking contract has ended. In this case, 8 minutes were taken to leave the car park.
2. P.E. have provided only a written statement in Section G, signed & dated 05.11.2019 on behalf of the landowner. 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 5 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 (p27-28) taken in June 2015, and are over 4 years old, and therefore are not representative of the current state of the signage. Pic 3 (p29) was taken in May 2018. Furthermore, the terms on the bottom of Sign Type 1b (p29) 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.

Redx

If it's close to or exceeds 2000 characters , remove punctuation like full stops , totally unnecessary , keep it concise and simple

Lobsterfish

Redx wrote: »

If it's close to or exceeds 2000 characters , remove punctuation like full stops , totally unnecessary , keep is concise and simple

Currently 1994.

Coupon-mad

I don't like any of this, as it is restating something POPLA may agree with:

P.E. have not however acknowledged there is an exit grace period; and erroneously state his 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.” directly contradicted in BPA CoP [Jan 2019] s13.4, which states that there is an exit grace period (min of 10 minutes) for the driver to leave the car park after the parking contract has ended.

Just say that it took 3 minutes on arrival to drive in and park, then walk over to pay at the machine (there MUST be a transaction period in a PDT machine car park, as the contract starts at the machine) and then just 8 minutes (well within 'grace period' after the paid parking allowance expired) to leave. And P/Eye have ignored that reasonable position, when in fact the car was parked for no more than 1 hour and 1 hr parking was paid for. Thus, the PCN was not properly given.

Le_Kirk

If you do leave it in, fix this: -

and erroneously state [strike]his[/strike] THIS does not mean that a second grace period must be given

The_Deep

They recently lost in court on signage,


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5957364/first-parking-eye-appeal-unsuccessful[/FONT]

Lobsterfish

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 denied the right to an exit grace period; and erroneously state that a second grace period should not be given. Directly contradicted in BPA CoP [Jan 2019] s13.4, which states that there is an exit grace period (min of 10 minutes) for the driver to leave the car park after the parking contract has ended. In this case, 8 minutes were taken to leave the car park.
2. P.E. have provided only a written statement in Section G, signed & dated 05.11.2019 on behalf of the landowner. 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 5 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 (p27-28) taken in June 2015, and are over 4 years old, and therefore are not representative of the current state of the signage. Pic 3 (p29) was taken in May 2018. Furthermore, the terms on the bottom of Sign Type 1b (p29) 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.

Third attempt

Lobsterfish

The_Deep wrote: »

They recently lost in court on signage,


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Saw that, i'm sure they won't change their ways though as they're raking it in against the vast majority of people who won't fight a PCN.

Lobsterfish

The_Deep wrote: »

They recently lost in court on signage,

Saw that, i'm sure they won't change their ways though as they're raking it in against the vast majority of people who won't fight a PCN.