I hate myself for getting into this mess again

Dianna67

How long do the operator have to upload their evidence? It's been 7 days and there is no update on my case via the tracker.

Dianna67

Sooo… PE have come back with their evidence. To be honest, it all looks pretty thorough and impressive. I've gotta say I have a certain level of respect for them. They make reference to the timescales:



System generated print out showing that insufficient time was purchased on the date of the event.



Date/Time In

12/11/2019 12:30:41

Date/Time Out

12/11/2019 16:41:28

Time Allowed

0 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds

Time In Car Park

4 hours 10 minutes 47 seconds

Time Paid For

4 hours 0 minutes 0 seconds



They have a paragraph about having "written authority" but provide no proof or sight of the contract!



There is a small paragraph where they claim to be compliant with section 13.2 of the BCP:



"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."



"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."



There are about 2/3 pages of waffle about signs and ANPR cameras. They also mention Lord Hodge in relation to pre estimate of loss.



They provide copies of all correspondence and my initial appeal, as well as really nice site plans and copies of the signs. The small print is illegible, even when zooming. Their entrance sign is just a notice to pay at the machine or by phone and states that the land is private. You have to drive in further to see the standard tariff signs.



Soooo... My appeal goes as follows (although I only have 2000 characters!!! How to I whittle this down!!???):



The operator failed to prove that they have landowner authority. Sight of the contract would be true evidence. I require strict proof that the contract was in force on the date of the parking event and that the correct parties are named on the contract; in order to trace the rights from the landowner to the operator. The contract would also highlight in which instances the operator can and cannot issue charges.



The operator failed to demonstrate how an alleged 10 minute overstay has caused £100 worth of loss. The operator refers to the Beavis case; which is not applicable to paid-for parking. The Beavis case was based on the facts of that particular case – an overstay in a free car park. In the case of ParkingEye Vs Cargius it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The judge distinguished it by reasoning that in Beavis the charge was justifiable as it was their only income, whereas in a paid car park, only the hourly charge is being lost by overstaying (e.g. £2); anything above that is clearly a penalty.



Regarding the signage, I challenge anyone to read the small print on the sign (type 1a). They don’t mention what the parking company will use the ANPR data for. There was no mention on the signs that I must pay at the exact time of entering the site, or that I must calculate the observation and payment time and then deduct this time from the ticketed time. Had such an unrealistic scenario been stipulated, I would have done a U turn and drove straight out! In order to meet the transparency requirement, the signage should state the timing is from the point of entry and exit to the car park; otherwise how could I have reasonably known this?



The operator claims to operate a grace period but does not state the exact time in minutes. My vehicle entered the site on 12/11/19 at 12:30:41. I purchased a ticket via paybyphone at 12:41. The expiry time of my ticket was 16:41 and I left the car park at 16:41:28. The PCN has rounded off the seconds to the nearest minute and detailed my “total stay at the car park: 4 hours 10 minutes”. My ticket covered 4 hours exactly (12:41 to 16:41). Leaving an alleged overstay of 10 minutes.



I would also like to highlight a discrepancy. The PCN I received refers to “total time in car park: 4 hours 10 minutes” as does the case detail on page 12 of their evidence. However on the page 5 of the evidence the case detail puts my “time in car park: 4 hours 10 minutes 47 seconds”. This is a lack of clarity!



The 10 minutes at the beginning of my stay were used to enter the site, locate a parking spot, maneuver into the spot, identify the nearest sign, read and agree to the tariffs and the terms and conditions. I then logged onto the website, obtained my username and password, entered my card details, entered the location number, entered the required parking time, and processed the payment. In no way shape or form did I try to cheat the system or obtain an unpaid service. I was compliant with all of the rules and happy to pay for the services rendered. I used my observation period correctly and within the law and monitored the countdown on the website to ensure that I returned on time, exiting the site 28 seconds after the expiry of my ticket.



I put it to the PoPLA assessors that Parking Eye have failed to allow me a sufficient grace period and observation period for entry and/or exit based on Section 13 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice.



13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.



13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.



13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.



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.



I arrived on site, made correct use of my observation time, paid for 4 hours, parked for 4 hours and left the site.

Redx

far too long

remove the waffle , include the 2 grace periods allowed by the BPA CoP , especially as those would have been in the popla appeal

they have shown that the time was paid for and the extra time is split over 2 periods because the parking period starts when the button is pressed on the PDT terminal , the exit time is a MINIMUM of 10 minutes after the parking period has ended

check other 2019 popla rebuttals, see how they were worded , plagiarise those but concentrate on item number one , grace periods and the BPA CoP to start with

Umkomaas

The operator claims to operate a grace period but does not state the exact time in minutes. My vehicle entered the site on 12/11/19 at 12:30:41. I purchased a ticket via paybyphone at 12:41. The expiry time of my ticket was 16:41 and I left the car park at 16:41:28. The PCN has rounded off the seconds to the nearest minute and detailed my “total stay at the car park: 4 hours 10 minutes”. My ticket covered 4 hours exactly (12:41 to 16:41). Leaving an alleged overstay of 10 minutes.

You took 11 minutes to park and pay for the ticket? You're going to need a good story as to why it took that long.

A 10mins 41secs overstay falls almost perfectly into the BPA minimum grace period requirement at the end of the parking period. You don't get that much automatically at the start of parking - unless there's a very good reason for it. But I don't rate your chances of persuading POPLA for that amount of time consumed before parking commenced.

You need to forget about stating the time the ticket was purchased, rather you state that - from memory - it took (say) approximately 3 mins to enter car park, find a space, leave your car, read the signs, then decide to stay and purchase your ticket.

Then, the balance of the 10mins 41secs (7mins 41 secs) were used to leave the busy, congested car park, queueing to join the main road, eventually passing under the exit ANPR camera. 7mins 41secs is well within the mandatory minimum 10 minute grace period dictated by the BPA.

Important - do PE show in any of their evidence proof of the actual time your ticket was purchased?

Redx

perhaps the OP needed to download the app first ? , or there was no mobile signal or it was intermittent ? or there was also a queue to park , waiting for a space is not parking on busy car parks , plus reading the signs etc

as above , concentrate on breaking it down into 2 distinct and separate periods , parking was clearly paid for so no bilking , so concentrate the assessors mind on what is reasonable before and after parking was paid for

Fruitcake

I think you have all the rebuttal points needed but you are way over 2000 characters.

Keep it short but sweet.

You only need one or two lines for each point.

For example, where they say,
"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."

You could say, this breaches the BPA CoP that say they comply with. If it's not in the CoP then it is a hidden contract term.

For the landowner authority point you could say, PE have not provided a signed contract with the landowner, therefore have not shown they have authority to operate on this site.

For the signage point, you could say that the images of signs provided by PE cannot be read even by zooming in.

… and so on.

If they have not addressed any of your appeal points then say so, and state those points must therefore be allowed.

Dianna67

Thank you all again! I'm struggling to get the character count down though. it all seems so relevant. Plus I'm Irish, I can't be "brief" LOL Can someone advice which bits are the least important and can be deleted?
Parking Eye (PE) have not provided a signed contract with the landowner, nor a landowner signed statement therefore they have not proven that they have authority to operate on this site and issue PCN’s.
The small print on the images of signs provided by PE cannot be read even by zooming in.
PE failed to demonstrate how an alleged 10 minute overstay has caused £100 worth of loss. PE refers to the Beavis case; which is not applicable to paid-for parking. The Beavis case was based on an overstay in a free car park. In the case of PE Vs Cargius it was held that the Beavis case did not apply since parking was paid for rather than free for a limited period. The £100 PCN is therefore a punitive penalty.
PE states that they offer a grace period on the site but fail to specify what it actually is, or what the exact grace period allowed by the landowner is.
I paid for 4 hours. The original PCN and the case detail on page 12 of the uploaded evidence pack have rounded off my total time in the car park to 4 hours 10 minutes. The alleged 10 minute overstay falls well within a reasonable grace period of time allowed at the beginning and end of my stay.
PE state that clause 13.4 of the BPA CoP “does not mean that a second grace period must be given and that only one grace period ought to be applied”. This is in direct breach of the BPA CoP which clearly sets out 2 grace periods.
The 1st reasonable grace period applies as per clause 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3. Under these clauses I entered the gravel site which has no floor markings at all, it was chaos navigating around other vehicles and coaches. I found a parking space, located the nearest sign, noted the tariffs struggled to read the terms and conditions, logged onto the website, obtained my login and password, entered the location code, selected my required parking time, returned to my car, obtained my card and input my payment details and figuratively speaking “pressed the green button”.
The 2nd grace period is detailed under clause 13.4 which grants me time to leave the site. On 30th July 2015, it was formally agreed by the BPA members and stakeholders that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA CoP to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes'. If the BPA feel “a minimum of 11 minutes” is a reasonable time period to leave a car park after a period of parking, it stands to reason that at least the same period of time is reasonable to also enter a car park. Therefore the alleged 10 minute overstay in my case should reasonably be considered part of the 2 grace periods, particularly if you take into account the fact that it was rush hour and the car park leads directly onto one of Liverpools’ most congested roads which was and still is undergoing extensive roadworks. The queue to exit the car park was huge.
Also consider my earlier points regarding the court of appeal case between NCP and HMRC, Thornton vs Shoe Lane case, the case of PE v Ms X and my points re Kelvin Reynolds and the difference between 'grace' periods and 'observation' periods where no time limit is specified.
PE have failed to allow me observation and grace periods and have not addressed any of my appeal points so those points must therefore be allowed.

KeithP

Dianna67 wrote: »

...and have not addressed any of my appeal points so those points must therefore be allowed.

I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Fruitcake was suggesting that you point out exactly which of your appeal points the PPC has not addressed - if indeed there are any of your appeal points that the PPC has not addressed. Not just writing that bland statement in your comments.

Umkomaas

Why the pale green font? Almost impossible to read where I am. Maybe it doesn't travel well.

Dianna67

Sorry about the green eyesore. I was sectioning off the bits I want to keep in Microsoft word, and didn't realise the color would remain once I pasted it into the text box here.

The points they didn't address were the 1st 4 paragraphs, ill regig and repost it, thanks