PARKING EYE - TAKING ME TO COURT - HOTEL OVERNIGHT GUEST

nspears

HOTEL GUESTS - PARKING EYE PCN ISSUED - POPLA APPEAL REFUSED - GOING TO COURT
We were hotel guests for a wedding and overnight stay.  We checked in and following hotels instructions and signage by entering our vehicle reg into touchscreen in reception which validated parking for 24 hours.  We went to our room, got changed attended the wedding service nearby taking the bridesmaids in our vehicle.  Returned about an hour later then stayed for the wedding reception and our overnight room stay.  
We don't know why POPLA refused our appeal as even they say they know we were hotel guests??  The hotel have tried on several occasions to cancel the PCN but parking eye are stating that cannot be done due to POPLA upholding the PCN.  Basically if I had gone straight to the hotel they would have cancelled it there and then but instead I followed parking eye's instructions to do a POPLA appeal... it did not state that we could contact the owners to cancel the charge.

Here is the POPLA decision and we think the confusion is that POPLA may think that we had to re-enter our reg on return to the car park but that is not the case according to signage you are covered for 24 hours parking as hotel guests.

POPLA CORRESPONDENCE:

Thank you for your email.

The decision is final and there is no further opportunity to appeal.

The reasons for the assessor's determination are as follows:

Assessor summary of operator's case:

 The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to either not purchasing the valid pay and display ticket, by parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted, or by not entering the registration details via the terminal, in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the signage. 

Assessor summary of appellant's case:

 The appellant states that they were a guest at the hotel on the date in question and entered the vehicle registration, after being prompted by the hotel receptionist.

The appellant explains that they got checked in, changed and then left the site the car park to drop the bridesmaids at the registry office around the corner, before returning back to the site and the vehicle remained there until the following morning.

The appellant has provided evidence of the hotel booking email, in support of the appeal. 

Assessor summary of reasons:

 Before begin my assessment I feel it is important to state that I am aware that Nicola Spears is appealing on behalf of the appellant Mr Christopher L Spears. When I refer to the appellant in my assessment, please note that I am referring to Christopher L Spears.

The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle, as such I am considering their liability for the PCN as the driver.

The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage, which states: “Hotel overnight guests must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal on arrival at reception to be receive free parking for the duration of their stay…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice of £100…”

The operator has provided Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images of the vehicle, entering the car park at 12:17, and exiting at 12:50, totalling a stay of 33 minutes.

The operator has also provided evidence of its machine data, showing that no vehicle registration details for AE63RYH were not registered on the date of breach.

The appellant has highlighted that they parked at the site, as overnight guests, and registered their vehicle details to validate the stay. The appellant has stated that they left the site temporarily to take bridesmaids to the wedding venue and then returned to the site, which the PCN has been issued for.

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 driver has entered the site with the intention of using the facilities. By the appellant parking on the site, he has entered into a contract and has therefore accepted the terms and conditions included.

After considering the evidence provided; I can see that the appellant was responsible for ensuring they submitted their vehicle details, in order to validate their parking between the time period stated on the PCN.

According the machine data log provided by the operator, there is no record of the appellant’s vehicle details registered at the site during this period on the date in question.

Whilst I appreciate that the appellant may have already registered their vehicle upon entering the site, by leaving the site and then returning to the car park, they have entered into a new contract and as such, the stay period stated has not been validated.

I have considered the appellant’s evidence and whilst I do not dispute that they were on the site for their intended purpose, this evidence does not support that they fully complied with the parking terms and registered the appropriate stay period.

Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant says that they were guests at the site and did not enter their vehicle details upon returning to the site as they had already registered their full stay period at the car park.

Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds for appeal as part of my decision, I have no further comments to make about them at this stage.

Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they have adhered to the terms and conditions of the car park.

In this case, by failing to register their vehicle registration details and not validating their stay, the appellant has accepted the potential consequence of receiving a PCN.

As such, I conclude the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal. 

Kind regards

POPLA Team

nspears

I have since realised when getting evidence together that the time my PCN was issed ofr was when we were offloading goods at the reception for the wedding and before I had formally checked into my room, we had to wait and queue to check in and also deliver goods for the wedding co-ordinater hence the duration they say was 33 minutes but we were still on the grounds of the hotel and have photographic evidence of the times etc.  People had taken pictures of our vehicle outside the reception due to it being the transport for the Bridesmaids.  When I appealed I had presumed it was when we had left the car park to attend the ceremony nearby but it appears it was when we had to park closer to the reception to offload and check in.    The signage does not state that there is a time limit for entering your registration into the touchscreen in reception and 33 minutes was a reasonable amount of time considering the hotel was packed with wedding guests all checking in at the same time as us.

Redx

its a judge you have to convince , not us , but try and get a letter of support (WS) from the hotel and email a SAR to the DPO at PE to get all your data

if you have a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton ? what is the issue date ?

have you done the AOS yet ?

have you filed a defence yet ?

D_P_Dance

ParkingEye's signs are, imo unfit for purposes, and several judges have taken the same view, 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.

happybagger

nspears said:
We checked in and following hotels instructions and signage by entering our vehicle reg into touchscreen in reception which validated parking for 24 hours. 
POPLA said

Whilst I appreciate that the appellant may have already registered their vehicle upon entering the site, by leaving the site and then returning to the car park, they have entered into a new contract and as such, the stay period stated has not been validated

Surely both of these can't be right, if parking was validated for 24 hours then the second entry was already validated?

Umkomaas

“Hotel overnight guests must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal on arrival at reception to be receive free parking for the duration of their stay…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice of £100…”

In preparation for your court proceedings, read up on the legal term 'Contra Proferentem' - right up your street relating to this. 

Johnersh

Hotel overnight guests must enter their full, correct vehicle registration into the terminal on arrival at reception to be receive free parking for the duration of their stay

In the plain English language meaning that is the duration of the hotel booking. It says the duration of the stay, not for each period of parking. This is not ANPR for a pay and display carpark.  POPLA have that wrong.  The whole purpose of the scheme is to ensure that there is ample free parking for paying hotel guests. Having made a booking and registered, it is reasonable to assume they could pass and repass at any point during the stay. 

The sign *could* easily state that guests must register their vehicle each time they arrive or depart. It presumably does not.

Even if I'm wrong in that, there is sufficient ambiguity in the wording, which should be construed in favour of the consumer. 

Escalate to senior management at the hotel and, if that doesn't work get it in writing from the IC Hotel Group (I assume it is them, it normally is) that they have asked for it to be cancelled so that it can be put before the judge. 

D_P_Dance

The sign *could* easily state that guests must register their vehicle each time they arrive or depart. It presumably does not.

But would that be a fair (or reasonable) term in a consumer contract?

twhitehousescat

the contract is not with parking eye , its with the hotel 

hotel wording "We checked in and following hotels instructions and signage by entering our vehicle reg into touchscreen in reception which validated parking for 24 hours. ", no "subcontractor" (pe) can alter ammend this contract , and hide behind POPLa , 
if the hotel will not get this cancelled , take them to court for brech of contract with you 

BrownTrout

If a chain then complain until they force pe to cancel. Fairly easy to do

Half_way

[quote]The hotel have tried on several occasions to cancel the PCN but parking eye are stating that cannot be done due to POPLA upholding the PCN[/quote]

Who is stating this Pakring eye or the Hotel, either which way it is stuff and nonsense.

 Is this hotel part of a group, a chain, or a small independent privately owned business? the answer to the above would dictate on how to deal with the hotel and the parking company