POPLA Appeal - ParkingEye PCN 11 minutes "overstay"

wiwan31

Hello, this is my first post on here, and I'm hoping somebody will be able to help.

I've received a Parking Charge Notice through the post from ParkingEye for an 11 minutes overstay at a private car park. Unfortunately, I ddin't think to check online (this website especially) what to do and simply went to their website to appeal the PCN (simply sending them my paybyphone receipt) . They sent me an email back to say that my appeal was unsuccessful and that I needed to take it to POPA. Having read through the NEWBIES thread and a number of specific threads on the forum about such appeals, I prepared the below letter to POPA (see below line). I was wondering if someone could review it and perhaps suggest some edits please?

Please note the following elements of context and questions that occured to me as I was writing the appeal:

1. Unfortunately, when I submitted my appeal on the ParkingEye online form, I mentioned that I was the "Registered Keeper and Driver" in one of the drop-down lists. My understanding is that they now have this information on record and I therefore did not add in the appeal the paragraph suggested on this forum around Keeper/Driver liability. Should I have done so anyway? I did make sure however that I didn't mention that I was the Driver, but simply the Keeper in the appeal letter.

2. I live very far from the car park and cannot check anymore, nor have any recollection or photo evidence that the signs at the entrance and inside the car park are inadequate or missing certain information. So, similarly I did not include a paragraph (also suggested here) about this particular aspect. Should I have included this nonetheless? And if so would there be appropriate specific wording that I should use, since I have no photo evidence?

3. The BPA Code of Practice seems to have changed recently and I wasn't too sure how to qualify the period between entering the car park and effecitvely paying for parking. I've seen mention of an "observation" period and the BPA Code of Practice mentions a "consideration" period, but then it seems the latter does not apply since, from what I can gather, there was indeed a parking event: "13.2 Thee reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place". How should I justify the 9 minutes prior to purchasing the ticket online? Is there a particular article I should reference? And basically is point #1 in my letter appropriate to cover both before and after periods.

4. I wasn't entirely sure that ParkingEye were not the landowner (although I did add a paragraph to that point #2, as suggested). Their PCN letter mentions that they "manage" the car park, but not that they do not own it. Is this something I should check somehow? Or can I safely assume that they do not own the land?

5. I've tried to be as exhaustive as possible, but I was wondering if there's anything else I should add here or write differently that would make my appeal stronger?

Many thanks in advance!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POPLA Verification Code:##

ParkEye Parking Charge Notice Reference: ##

Vehicle Registration: ##

 I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 26/09/2020 acting as a parking charge notice to the registered keeper (reference ##). My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye Ltd – was submitted online on the Operator’s website (link), acknowledged by said website on 30/09/2020 and then rejected via an email from ParkingEye Ltd dated 08/10/2020. I contend that I am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

 

1.    No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park and pay for parking online, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

2.    No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the Operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

3.    No Evidence of Period Parked – The Operator is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice

 

 

1.    No period of grace given for the driver to read the additional signs within the car park and pay for parking online, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

 

This matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere eleven minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The paid for parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the parking ticket was purchased or at which it expired.

The BPA Code of Practice  states:

 

(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.

The driver of the car at the time was captured by cameras driving in to the car park at 12.28 and driving out at 16.39 on the same date.

 

Upon parking and reading the signage inside the car park, the driver realised they did not have coins at their disposal to use the onsite pay and display ticket machine which did not offer card payments. They therefore had to follow a number of steps to pay for parking online via the paybyphone (link) mobile application: read the terms and conditions on the car park sign, identify payment options, review online payment instructions, collect the mobile phone from the vehicle, turn on the mobile phone, download the paybyphone application, install the paybyphone application, complete the personal details form and enter credit card details on the application, find the parking location reference on the car park signage, and eventually set up payment for parking at the location on the application. This resulted in parking being effectively purchased at 12:37 and for a period of 4 hours until 16:37 (see below receipt).

 (receipt image)

In their appeal rejection letter, ParkingEye state that their “records show insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum grace period set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the car park exceeded the paid period by only 11 minutes, a sum of 9 minutes prior to purchasing parking online, and 2 minutes after the parking period had ended.

 

By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 10/11 minute false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.

 

2.  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 Code of Practice) 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 in small print 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

 

3.  No Evidence of Period Parked – The Operator is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus entering and exiting the car park.

 

Paragraph (29.4) of the BPA Code of Practice states :

The notice must:

·         specify the vehicle, the land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates

 

The ParkingEye Ltd parking charge notice simply claims:

Time in Car Park: 4 hours 11 minutes

Arrival Time: 23/09/2020 12:28:17

Departure Time: 23/09/2020 16:39:53

 

The parking charge notice separately states that the vehicle:

entered [location] at 12:28:17 and departed at 16:39:53 on 23 September 2020

 

At no stage do ParkingEye Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by the BPA Code of Practice. I require Euro Car Parks to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the Parking Charge Notice.

Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.
Yours faithfully

D_P_Dance

There is no such thing as a "registered driver" therefore you have given nothing away 

PE signs are rubbish, read this

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

Redx

Did the NTK PCN comply with POFA ?? If yes it doesn't matter which entity you appealed as , driver or keeper is irrelevant in a compliant POFA case

The January 2020 BPA CoP is the one to read

It is extremely unlikely that Parking Eye own the Land , they will be a contractor , so plan A is your best option

A popla appeal will possibly win on no landowner authority , poor signage and grace periods , if it wins at all. The only chance of a win is if the claimant failed on a technicality

Sending a copy of the receipt didn't help , it's an alleged overstay , not non payment

MistyZ

Where is the car park?  Very often Google Street View takes you straight to it and capturing screenshots of signage works really well for photographic evidence.  

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye don't own any car parks so you need the standard POPLA point about landowner authority.

And remove this pointless intro:

 I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 26/09/2020 acting as a parking charge notice to the registered keeper (reference ##). My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye Ltd – was submitted online on the Operator’s website (link), acknowledged by said website on 30/09/2020 and then rejected via an email from ParkingEye Ltd dated 08/10/2020.

wiwan31

Thank you all for the feedback!

D_P_Dance said:

PE signs are rubbish, read this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

I read the thread you suggested, but I'm afraid I don't understand how it relates to my appeal? I can't say for certain what the signage was like at that car park and cannot check as it is now hundreds of miles from where I live.

MistyZ said:

Where is the car park?  Very often Google Street View takes you straight to it and capturing screenshots of signage works really well for photographic evidence.  

I had a look on Google Street View, but the photos there seem dated, showing coaches park in the car park, rather than cars like when I was there last month. Unfortunately no accurate signage evidence can be captured from there.

Redx said:

Did the NTK PCN comply with POFA ?? If yes it doesn't matter which entity you appealed as , driver or keeper is irrelevant in a compliant POFA case
The January 2020 BPA CoP is the one to read
It is extremely unlikely that Parking Eye own the Land , they will be a contractor , so plan A is your best option
A popla appeal will possibly win on no landowner authority , poor signage and grace periods , if it wins at all. The only chance of a win is if the claimant failed on a technicality
Sending a copy of the receipt didn't help , it's an alleged overstay , not non payment

The PCN seems to comply POFA, so, as driver or keeper is irrelevant, should I simply use the first person throughout the letter?

The January 2020 BPA CoP is indeed the one I'm referencing. However I'm unclear on how in it's wording covers for the 9 minute period prior to purchase? Would you mind pointing me to the article that I should reference please?

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye don't own any car parks so you need the standard POPLA point about landowner authority.
And remove this pointless intro:

 I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated 26/09/2020 acting as a parking charge notice to the registered keeper (reference ##). My appeal to the Operator – ParkingEye Ltd – was submitted online on the Operator’s website (link), acknowledged by said website on 30/09/2020 and then rejected via an email from ParkingEye Ltd dated 08/10/2020.

Noted about the Landowner part, I will leave that in the letter in that case.

I will also remove the intro as you suggest.

Coupon-mad

I'm unclear on how in it's wording covers for the 9 minute period prior to purchase? 

It does and doesn't because the 5 minutes is a MINIMUM.  So you have to tell the story of why it took 9 minutes to get coins.  Talk about COVID queues even to get change...describe it in minute detail.  If you had kids with you, say how slowly they were walking to and from getting coins.  If there was a queue and only on or two machines, say so. 

That point is the one that might save you a court case if POPLA understand the nine minutes.

KeithP

wiwan31 said:

MistyZ said:

Where is the car park?  Very often Google Street View takes you straight to it and capturing screenshots of signage works really well for photographic evidence.  

I had a look on Google Street View, but the photos there seem dated, showing coaches park in the car park, rather than cars like when I was there last month. Unfortunately no accurate signage evidence can be captured from there.

Sounds familiar.

Is this car park in St Ives?
Maybe this one - https://goo.gl/maps/yHscMay3W92NqCcb6

If so, you would be wise to read this very recent thread -
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6196283/ticket-for-entering-car-park-and-leaving-6-minutes/p1

There are pictures of signs and a ticket machine in that thread, together with a lot more useful information.


If it is that car park, then maybe @zhonguonuren will show an interest.

wiwan31

KeithP said:

Is this car park in St Ives?
If so, you would be wise to read this very recent thread -
There are pictures of signs and a ticket machine in that thread, together with a lot more useful information.
If it is that car park, then maybe @zhonguonuren will show an interest.

Yes, that's exactly the one, thank you for figuring it out. And thank you @zhonguonuren for taking these pictures. The difference with this thread is that I've actually entered a contract by purchasing parking online.

Are the pictures of the car park signage and ticket machine sufficient evidence to also appeal on the grounds that they are non-compliant?

D_P_Dance

I read the thread you suggested, but I'm afraid I don't understand how it relates to my appeal? 

It gives you pointers on how to attack your PPC's signage at appeal/court stage.  When I worked for a certain Government department it was drummed into me that you never ignore any intelligence.  

wiwan31

Coupon-mad said:

I'm unclear on how in it's wording covers for the 9 minute period prior to purchase? 

It does and doesn't because the 5 minutes is a MINIMUM.  So you have to tell the story of why it took none minutes to get coins.  Talk about COVID queues even to get change...describe it in minute detail.  If you had kids with you, say how slowly they were walking to and from getting coins.  If there was a queue and only on or two machines, say so. 
That point is the one that might save you a court case if POPLA understand the nine minutes.

Thank you for the guidance. You seem to be referring to 13.1 of the January 2020 BPA CoP and a "consideration period", correct? What confuses me is that this clause doesn't seem to apply "where a parking event takes place" (13.2). My understanding is that since I purchased parking (eventually and online), said "parking event" did take place and so 13.1 consideration period doesn't apply in this case? Is there another clause you might be referring to?

• 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.