Parking Eye PCN

craigsteeps76

Good afternoon all
We have just received a PCN for spending 17 hours and 37 minutes in a car park last weekend... It shows our car entering at 19:19:51 last Friday and us leaving at 12:57:43 the following day... These are indeed true, but we left Subway at around 19:30 last Friday then came back to shop for a sofa at SCS the following day at around 11am. So they have missed those 2 bits out. I have proof i paid in Subway on Friday and again at SCS on Saturday.
Is this worth appealing or is still a case of not doing anything with these things?
Thanks
Craig

Coupon-mad

No-one would ignore ParkingEye and that's not been the advice here since 2013, seven years ago.  They sue people.

But this is easily quashed by complaining to the retailers - you will know that when you read the NEWBIES thread at the top! 

In your case DON'T use the template appeal there, but if the retailers are slow to cancel, don't let it get past 28 days and crack on and appeal online to P/Eye then, telling them it is a double visit (well known ANPR default error).  If you have Dashcam evidence then append a pic to steer them in the right direction:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/10/parkingeye-scammers-caught-out-by-canny.html

The BPA know about this:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/ANPR

''As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use:

a)    Repeat users of a car park inside a 24 hour period sometimes find that their first entry is paired with their last exit, resulting in an ‘overstay’. Operators are becoming aware of this and should now be checking all ANPR transactions to ensure that this does not occur.''

Errrrm....only ''should''?!

Please now make a real difference (see below) because not enough people have yet, and time is running out.  

In your case please put in your comments on the wider framework that ANPR is not fit for purpose and you've found evidence to show a flaw, that the BPA also know about and yet it's not mentioned in the Codes of Practice.

A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER - NB: this will take an hour or more to go through each section, and to do BOTH consultations:

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

Please complete comment on all sections if you have a view, remembering the vision of the Knight Act is to end extortionate parking charges.  If you agree with us, the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters and MUST GO, along with the robo-claim legal firms. 

A Speeding fine is £100.  A Local Authority lower rate parking penalty is £50.  Which do you think a private PCN should be like?

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives.

 On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written! 

 But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.

Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

D_P_Dance

It is called double dipping and happens because ANPR cameras malfunction, read some of these.  

https://www.google.com/search?q=double+dipping+MSE&oq=double+dipping+MSE&aqs=chrome..69i57.11164j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8