Assistance Please. Parking Fine for 7 minutes stay

Coupon-mad

Can't zoom in on that but it's clearer than plenty.

Pjntjn2

From one extreme to the other!!

Johnersh

The fact is that PE have failed to make any provision for those that arrive and either don't agree to the terms or find that they cannot (no change, no phone etc). Their entirely automated system has merely identified a registration, not traced a payment, leading to the issue of a PCN.

There needs to be provision for those that decide to leave, otherwise merely coming onto the land constitutes a breach (waiting) before the terms are even read.

Thornton v Shoe Lane is actually quite helpful here insofar as it talks about a contract being formed when Thornton put money in the machine (accepting the offer). Here the o/p neither leaves the car nor pays, terms were not therefore accepted by payment or impliedly accepted by parking. 

D_P_Dance

There seems to be a lot of tiny print on that sign, read these.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

A judge earlier this year made these comments and dismissed the claim.

"This signage contains a huge amount of wording, in varying fonts. There are
between 650 ta 700 words, by my rough count. it's well known that the average
reading speed of most adults is aground 200 to 250 words per minute. On the basis
however that this is reading a sign and there are many technical words, it would
probably take an average reader about 3 to 4 minutes to read everything on the
sign. The key part however is found be found some 140 words into the text. It is in the
middle of the sign and it says this, in capitals, then below it is a lower sized font
referring to the £100:"   DJ Harvey

In my opinion it would take longer than -3 – 4 minutes to read this lot.

Pjntjn2

As a side issue there are absolutely no markings for bays and no yellow lines/hatched areas whatsoever.
It is a poorly maintained parking area to say the very least.

Umkomaas

Pjntjn2 said:

As a side issue there are absolutely no markings for bays and no yellow lines/hatched areas whatsoever.
It is a poorly maintained parking area to say the very least.

Do you have your own photos of these?  If not get some, taken in similar light conditions to those at the time of the parking event. If it was dark, don't use flash, which will enhance the photos - not what you want. 

Johnersh

Pick your best argument and run with that. Why get sidetracked about yellow lines if the whole point is that you never actually parked other than to read the t&cs.

There are lots of sample arguments on the forum, but that doesn't mean you have to use them all or that 10 weak arguments are better than one or two really good ones... 

Pjntjn2

I've started a draft PoPLA appeal. I'm doing my best and would be grateful for any advice whether it is good bad or ugly!
Draft below minus images.

POPLA Ref No.xxxxxxxx

 

I am the registered keeper and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from Parking Eye Ltd. The charge is levied despite the driver not being identified.

 

The driver entered the carpark, got out the car to read the signs and pay for their parking. The driver then noticed the two payment machines onsite were not working. The driver then inspected signage relating to parking terms and conditions (see image attached).  Having spent a number of minutes attempting to digest an unreasonable amount of information and concluding that without immediate internet access there was no further means to pay the driver got back into their car and left the car park. The driver spent a total of 7 minutes in the car park.

I expect ParkingEye to provide strict proof that the PDT machines were in working order during the times specified in the PCN that was received by the registered keeper. Also ParkingEye need to provide evidence of PDT repairs for the day in question.

 

I refer you to the new statutory Code of Practice draft that will require at least 10 minutes consideration period plus enough time to leave, if the machines are all broken?

 

In relation to the Beavis case, the driver here cannot be considered to have 'agreed' to a parking contract like Mr Beavis did. An unfair 'out of all proportion' charge for non-parking activity is precisely the sort of charge that the Beavis case Judges made clear would fail the penalty rule which was 'plainly engaged'.

 

The minimum grace period was allowed by the operator:

The vehicle entered the car park at 16.42 and left at 16.49. This is a total of 7 minutes.

British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:

Consideration and Grace Periods

 

13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.

 

13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place.

 

13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.

 

13.4 Unauthorised motorists will not be entitled to the minimum time period of 5 minutes for a consideration period in spaces designated for specific users e.g Blue Badge holders, pick up/drop off or where parking is prohibited such as hatched areas in front of emergency exits, or on entry and exit ramps etc.

 

13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

 

13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period.

The operator makes much of Beavis case. They are well aware that the circumstances of the Beavis case were entirely different, essentially that case was the abuse of a free time limited public car park where signage could be used to create a contract.

 

In this case, the driver entered the car park, got out of their car to read the signs, saw the ticket machine was not working and therefore chose not to park in the car park. The driver did not accept any contract and therefore could not have breached the contract as Parkingeye have claimed. The driver stayed in the car park for less than 10 minutes in total, which is less than the grace period that the driver was entitled to under 13.4 of British Parking Association Code of Practice.

 

 

No evidence of Landowner Authority.

The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot

be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

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.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Also Parking Eye have provided no evidence that the ANPR system is reliable. The operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show the vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parking Eye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed

when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

Parking Eye has not provided any evidence to show that their system is reliable, accurate or maintained. I request that you uphold my appeal based on this.

Coupon-mad

Where's the usual template point about signage, at the end?  No-one does a POPLA appeal and misses out putting the PPC to proof of clear signage.

Remove the question mark here, it makes no sense:

I refer you to the new statutory Code of Practice draft that will require at least 10 minutes consideration period plus enough time to leave, if the machines are all broken?

 This also makes no sense (below).  Surely you mean an insufficient consideration period/grace period was allowed.  Given that the operator's machines were not working it would be an unfair term to take advantage of that fact and apply only the bare minimum, in a case where the driver tried to pay and this takes more time than someone who drives in and out, which is what the bare minimum 5 minutes might just cover.  Not in this case because several minutes had already passed by the time the driver stood in front of the machine, expecting to pay, and couldn't, through no fault of their own.

The minimum grace period was allowed by the operator:

Pjntjn2

Thank you for helping me out.
I'm re wording my appeal and will re post with reference to signage issues onsite before submitting my appeal to PoPLA.