Parkingeye VS Postie

aloneasim

I have filed for AOS on 20 June 20..Now preparing for my defense, I would appreciate gurus inputs regarding my case please
I have arrived at the car park at 10:43:23 and the departure time 13:11:39 as per their ANPR taking snapshot of my car number plate, Total time parked is 2:28 Minutes
 I have paid for the parking via using paybyphone. It was my first ever visit to the the Manchester city centre. It took me ages to figure it out as to how to pay for the parking. At first I have tried to ring the number provided Paybyphone 0330 400 7275  but I was unable to enter the car registration number then I went to the parking board, took a picture, came back to my car and tried to download the 'paybyphone' app. Downloading was taking forever. I have attempted to pay via the website. After few attempts I was successful and I paid £4.70 for 2 hours parking at 11:23. The whole hustle regarding making payment took us almost 40 minutes. It was ever so confusing to obtain ticket being 2 children in the car (18 Months and 4 years old). Please guide me further in this regard

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

aloneasim

Thank you KeithP. The issue date is 15 June 2020. Cheers

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th July 2020 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the very last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Coupon-mad

There are ParkingEye example defence templates there in the top sticky thread, post #2. 

Change the 'Odeon' one linked in the NEWBIES thread, to talk about a faulty payment method instead of a faulty Ipad.  Add that the Defendant left some 12 minutes before the app payment expiry time, and that this is a misleading business practice and a failure to offer a suitable consideration period on arrival.  No adequate time was allowed for people to make the faulty app and website work for the first time and ten minutes was not enough.

Basically, even if you'd given up and left the car park after trying to download the app, you'd still have got a PCN, either way.  You were trapped either way and this is exactly the sort of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court had in mind when they discussed the sort of parking charge that would be unconscionable.

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs, and in some cases, cancellation. 

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 later this year,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, 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/of these Private Parking Companies.

aloneasim

Just looked at the google street view and the provision was there for me to use the machine upon leaving the car park but I didn't realize at that time and wasted considerable time on making payment through phoning, downloading app and end up paying being going online on their website. 
I am not sure I can use Ipad defence? Any inputs please? 

aloneasim

POPLA Assessor summary regarding refusal of my appeal is as follows:

 

Assessor Summary of Appellant Case

 The appellant has provided a document covering extensive grounds of appeal. I have bullet pointed and highlighted these grounds below: • Grace period. They say that the operator is in noncompliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit, and signage is not prominent clear or legible from all spaces with insufficient notice of the sum of the charge. • The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver of the vehicle. • No evidence of landowner authority. They say that the operator is put to strict proof of full compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. • No evidence of the period parked. They say that the Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. • They say that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is neither reliable nor accurate. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a copy of the receipt and grounds of appeal statement. Assessor Summary of Operator Case The operator’s case is that the total duration of parking time was not paid for. Assessor Summary of Reasons The appellant has indicated that they were the driver on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering their liability as driver of the vehicle. When entering a private car park, motorists are expected to comply with the terms and conditions. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Up to 2 hours £4.50…Up to 4 hours £4.50…How to Pay: At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park…Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 10:43 and exiting at 13:11, totalling a stay of two hours and 28 minutes spent at site. The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was registered against a payment for two hours parking time only. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued as the vehicle was parked for two hours and 28 minutes, however, was only registered against a payment covering two hours parking time. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant has provided a document covering extensive grounds of appeal. I have bullet pointed and highlighted these grounds below: • Grace period. They say that the operator is in non-compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. It states in section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice: “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. SUBJECT ACCESS COPY 23 In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.” They say that the driver was having issues downloading the paybyphone app as it was taking a while due to slow download speeds. They say that the driver was advised by a passer by to use the website to pay and used this method instead. They say that it was a nightmare being accompanied two children under four years old. The appellant entered at 10:43 and a payment was made at 11:23, 40 minutes later. I am not satisfied that 40 minutes is a reasonable period. If they were unable to pay within a reasonable period, I would have expected them to seek alternative payment methods much sooner, or alternatively exit the site. I note the appellant left before the parking time expired which left 28 minutes unpaid for. • The entrance signs are inadequately positioned and lit, and signage is not prominent clear or legible from all spaces with insufficient notice of the sum of the charge. It also states in section 18.3: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The operator has also provided a site plan. Having viewed the signage location on the site plan, and also viewed the images of the signage on display I am satisfied that the signage was conspicuous, and easy to read and understand. It further states in section 18.4 of the BPA Code of Practice: “If you intend to use the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, your signs must give ’adequate notice’. This includes: • specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking • adequately bringing the charges to the attention of drivers, and • following any applicable government signage regulations.” I am satisfied that the signage clearly advertises to motorists that if they do not meet the terms and conditions that a £100 charge will be issued. It also states in Appendix B under Contrast and Illumination: “Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.” I am satisfied that the motorist parked in daylight hours and as such there was no requirement to illuminate signage. • The operator has not shown that the individual it is pursuing is in fact the driver of the vehicle. Whilst I note the appellant’s comments the appellant has identified themselves as the driver to the operator. The appellant made statements such as ‘It was my first ever visit to the Manchester City Centre’ and ‘At first I have tried to ring the number provided but I was unable to enter the car registration number then I went to the parking board, took a picture, came back to my car and tried to download the ‘paybyphone app.’ I am satisfied from this statement that the appellant was the driver of the vehicle. As such the provisions of PoFA 2012 do not apply as the operator is not seeking to pursue the registered keeper for the charge. • No evidence of landowner authority. They say that the operator is put to strict proof of full compliant with the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA Code of Practice states in section 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.” The operator has provided a copy of the agreement with the landowner which entitles it to enforce parking on this land from June 2018. I am satisfied that it meets the BPA Code of Practice requirements. • No evidence of the period parked. They say that the Notice to Keeper does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements. As stated PoFA 2012 is not considered as the operator is pursuing the driver of the vehicle for the PCN. There would be no evidence of the vehicle actually parked as the site is monitored by ANPR which monitors the time period that the vehicle has spent on this land by taking a photograph of them entering and exiting. The site is not warden patrolled. • They say that the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system is neither reliable nor accurate. Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and SUBJECT ACCESS COPY 24 transparent manner. “ The BPA audit the ANPR systems and the technology has been found to be accurate. The appellant has not provided me with any evidence which would cast doubt on the reliability of the ANPR cameras. The appellant has provided evidence to support their submission. This includes a copy of the receipt and grounds of appeal statement. The BPA Code of Practice states in section 19.3: “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid for, or if they trespass on your land, they may be liable for parking charges. These charges must be shown clearly and fully to the driver on the signs which contain your terms and conditions.” I acknowledge the appellant’s comments. However, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they park in accordance with the terms and conditions on a privately operated car park. By parking on this land this signifies their acceptance of the terms and conditions and as the total duration of parking time was not paid for these terms and conditions were not met. I conclude

Coupon-mad

POPLA Asessors can be thick. 
Look at this conflict, the signs say you can pay AT ANY TIME before leaving the car park!

How to Pay: At the payment machine at any time before exiting the car park…

Yet the judgemental Assessor forgets that, and says you took too long (you can't take too long if you paid 'at any time' before leaving...as per the signs)!:

The appellant entered at 10:43 and a payment was made at 11:23, 40 minutes later. I am not satisfied that 40 minutes is a reasonable period. If they were unable to pay within a reasonable period, I would have expected them to seek alternative payment methods much sooner, or alternatively exit the site.

Carry on with the defence as advised. 
Stop trying to undo your own case!