ParkingEye The Range Truro outside opening hours

fviajero

Hi happybagger,  
In my case, the shop (not PE) has a sign at the entrance of the car park with the opening times. But I understand the main point is that in the PCN, PE indicates that signage states a maximum of 0 hours 0 minutes (stead of indicating that it was parking when business was closed) what is not true, as the sign shows a different max stay (1 1/2 hours for you, 2 hours for me), therefore the PCN is not valid. And I guess the reason why they have to state it in this way, is because "the PCN issued by ParkingEye states the car park has a maximum stay time of 0 mins, as such parking is therefore forbidden. A contract cannot be formed as terms for parking have not been offered to, and cannot be accepted by, a driver. Consequently only the Landowner can take action against the driver for trespass, with ParkingEye having no course of action open to them". 
Can I refer to your assessor response in my appeal? I only have the date of the appeal, not the full name of the assessor nor your information, would I need that? can you share with me in private?
Thanks,

happybagger

Other wiser more established users will know more about that, so listen to what they say. I would simply say: You see how the assessor viewed my 4 appeal points, and how they responded.
1: The appellant says that there has been insufficient observation or grace periods
2: They say that the car park contains inadequate / forbidding signage.
3: The appellant says that the operator does not have the authority from the landowner to issue PCNs on site.
4. In addition, they say that the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012)

In your case:
1. If your 'stay' was 21 mins then grace periods are irrelevant in your case, so don't use it.
2. This has to be the point to ram home. 2 hours free parking. PCN states 0 mins free parking. 21 mins is 'well within' 2 hours. 0 mins makes it a trespass issue, not breach of contract. Also, Looking on Google streetview it doesn't seem that the car park has an 'Entry Sign'. This is required under the BPA code of practice para 18.2 (google BPA code of practice). So if it IS missing from the site, add that point,
3. I had no idea about if they had no authority, but they will reveal it in their evidence pack, which you can then rebut (as I did), as their document was weak at best
4. I put this in although in my case it had no bearing, just in case something cropped up in PE's evidence.

The usual view is you put the most compelling argument as the first to get their attention.  On my thread, the robinofloxley post on 16/10/17 you may find useful
I don't think there's any point in referring to my appeal, just construct your own using the points 2-4 above, and anything else you think is important having read the Newbies thread of course! And I have no other info to share other than what is on the thread (no POPLA case number, name, or anything). 

You'll need pictures of signs
Don't miss the deadline.

Coupon-mad

Just complain to the Range H/O citing the User Manual...

D_P_Dance

ParkingEys signs are the pits and were this to go to court thety would be likely to lose because of it, read this

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

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

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, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, 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.

fviajero

Thanks again.
So what about dedicating a specific (and first) reason in this terms? and same for the second one?
1- Stay time is less than maximum permitted
2. Not contract formed between driver and ParkingEye
3. Mitigation circumstances
4. Insufficient Signage
5. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

1. Stay time is less than maximum permitted

The operator has issued a PCN as the motorist has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. But the signage in and around the area clearly states that the maximum stay time is two hours. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 22:26:27 and leaving at 22:47:46 after completing a stay session of 21 minutes. In this instance, the motorist has remained on site for a total of 21 minutes, whereas the maximum stay time is 2 hours. As such, it is concluded that the motorist has not in the car park for longer than the maximum time permitted.

Here pictures evidencing that Entrance sign picture and parking-term sign (taken during daytime, different than what driver could see in darkness) clearly showing that maximum stay time is 2 hours.

There is already precedent in POPLA’s assessors team on the rational for this decision, e.g.:

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’1 ½ hour max stay…Customer only car park…Strictly no parking outside of store opening hours…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £85.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. Whilst I note the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my assessment will focus solely on signage as this supersedes the other grounds. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. The operator has issued a PCN as the motorist has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. Whilst I acknowledge this, the signage in and around the area clearly states that the maximum stay time is one hour and 30 minutes. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 18:52 and leaving at 19:04 after completing a parking session of 12 minutes. In this instance, the appellant has remained on site for a total of 12 minutes, whereas the maximum stay time is one hour and 30 minutes. As such, I can only conclude that they have not parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

2. Not contract formed between driver and ParkingEye

The PCN issued by ParkingEye states the car park has a maximum stay time of 0 mins, as such parking is therefore forbidden. A contract cannot be formed as terms for parking have not been offered to, and cannot be accepted by, a driver. Consequently only the Landowner can take action against the driver for trespass, with ParkingEye having no course of action open to them.

Coupon-mad

#2 needs the heading to start ''No'', not ''Not''.  But yes they are worth putting in.

In your #4. ''Insufficient Signage'' that I've had no time to re-read, is ''It was pitch black'' the first sentence?  If not, it should be, and embed pics of the signs taken in the dark on your late evening local exercise walk.

BUT for now, please stop yourself from frantically working on a POPLA appeal that will prevent the retailer complaint from being allowed!

This is the wrong way round and ParkingEye in particular, WILL agree to cancel a PCN for a store, pre-POPLA, but will NOT, if you start POPLA.  Cannot stress that enough!  It matters hugely that you do this first, and ask again for it to be cancelled:

Just complain to the Range H/O citing the User Manual...

In 'SUCCESSFUL COMPLAINTS ABOUT PPCS' (a thread replied to yesterday and it's linked in the first post of the NEWBIES thread) I replied showing an example of a very robust complaint to throw at retail parks right now to get a PCN cancelled.  Use some of those words.

happybagger

For OP, I saw your 'deadline'comment,  I hadn't looked at POPLA website tbh, it says:

It is vitally important to us that both motorists and parking operators have a full opportunity to submit their respective cases for our consideration. We have heard from both sides the difficulties faced engaging with our appeals process during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the interests of fairness, we have decided to adjourn all appeals received after 6 April 2020. This means that appeals will be put on hold and no action will be taken until things return to normal. It also means operators are not allowed to chase payment while this appeal is registered with POPLA.

We understand that motorists may not be in a position to gather evidence to submit a full appeal right now. Many want to revisit the car park and are unable to do so. However, if you intend to appeal, please submit your appeal now as best you can. We will treat this as your intention to appeal. When we start considering appeals again, we will write to affected motorists and give them additional time to submit their full appeal. If you do not submit your appeal, we may not be able to consider it later.

KeithP

Happybagger, have a look at this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6126237/popla-update/p1

happybagger

Thanks Keith, I hadn't spotted it as it dropped down to page 6, with last post on 8th. Sorry folks

fviajero

Hi Coupon-mad, as stated before, today I must appeal to POPLA, so I can't affort to write to the Range store beforehand.
So I am entering my appeal now, that reads as follows; taking into acount the Covid-19 on-hold period, I will have a chance to modify my current appeal, so any advice is still very valuable!

POPLA REF xxxxxx

CAR REG yyyyyyyy

As the registered keeper of the car mentioned above I would like to appeal and have cancelled the parking charge notice issued by ParkingEye Ltd for a number of reasons outlined below:

1-     Stay time was less than the “2 hours max stay” permitted  

2-     No contract formed between driver and ParkingEye

3-     Mitigation circumstances

4-     Insufficient Signage

5-     No evidence of Landowner Authority

NB: Due to the coronavirus lockdown stresses and issues, this is a work in progress.   As directed by POPLA on your FAQS page, I have registered my appeal now as best I can.  I note that appellants will be given extra time to submit their full appeal later and I await POPLA's response telling me when and how I can do this. 

1. Stay time was less than the “2 hours max stay” permitted   

The operator has issued a PCN claiming that the motorist has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. But the signage in and around the area clearly states that the maximum stay time is two hours. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 22:26:27 and leaving at 22:47:46 after completing a stay session of 21 minutes. In this instance, the motorist has remained on site for a total of 21 minutes, whereas the maximum stay time is 2 hours. As such, it is concluded that the motorist has not being in the car park for longer than the maximum time permitted.

Here pictures evidencing that Entrance sign and Parking-terms signage (taken during daytime, different than what driver could see in darkness) are clearly showing that maximum stay time is 2 hours.

There is already precedent in POPLA’s assessors team on the rational for admitting an appeal in identical grounds of appeal, for example:

## THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER APPEAL DECISION WITH SAME GROUNDS OF APPEAL### Assessor supporting rational for decision
When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’1 ½ hour max stay…Customer only car park…Strictly no parking outside of store opening hours…Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £85.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. Whilst I note the appellant has raised a number of grounds of appeal, my assessment will focus solely on signage as this supersedes the other grounds. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, including entrance signs which signpost the motorist to the full terms available within the car park. The operator has issued a PCN as the motorist has parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. Whilst I acknowledge this, the signage in and around the area clearly states that the maximum stay time is one hour and 30 minutes. The car park is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) this system has captured the appellant’s vehicle entering site at 18:52 and leaving at 19:04 after completing a parking session of 12 minutes. In this instance, the appellant has remained on site for a total of 12 minutes, whereas the maximum stay time is one hour and 30 minutes. As such, I can only conclude that they have not parked for longer than the maximum time permitted. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. ## END OF EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER APPEAL DECISION WITH SAME GROUNDS OF APPEAL###

2. No contract formed between driver and ParkingEye

The PCN issued by ParkingEye states the car park has a maximum stay time of 0 hours 0 mins, as such parking is therefore forbidden. A contract cannot be formed as terms for parking have not been offered to, and cannot be accepted by, a driver. Consequently only the Landowner can take action against the driver for trespass, with ParkingEye having no course of action open to them.

3. Mitigation circumstances

The driver of the car entered the car park on a Sunday passed 10pm due to an urgent need to stop the car due to a car dashboard warning light on, indicating an engine problem. The driver was driving on the highway A390 towards Truro, just passed Mac Donalds food store, and the Range car park was the most immediate place to stop (attached aerial picture showing it). The driver never left the car, and was in the park just the time needed to make several phone calls in order to get advise on the best way forward. Finally the driver got on-call help from a professional, who advised that is was save to drive back home (15 minute drive) and take the car to the garage the following day. The following morning the car was taken to the garage for a diagnosis. Garage invoice is attached.

Being the driver a usual customer of The Range, where its car park is free (up to 2 hours), this parking seemed to be the best place for safety stop, especially when there was plenty of free spaces. Due to the insufficient signage at the car park, as described in next section, and the driver stress due to the possibility of having the car broken at that time of the night, the driver could not guess that entering such regularly used car park at that time would be not allowed, or that it would cause any loss to any landowner for which a PCN would be issued.

[continues in next post]