POPLA Appeal - ParkingEye PCN 11 minutes "overstay"

wiwan31

Coupon-mad said:

No, I would just reiterate why it took 9 minute...using the sort of words I suggested, to put the idea in POPLA's mind that this was reasonable (of course it was.  A Judge would find it to be so!).

Ok thanks, will draft it up now.

wiwan31

Does this look ok? I've got 4 characters to spare!

Despite what the Operator’s claims, the grace periods they applied are not “sufficient” and “not fully compliant with the BPA code of practice”. Given the poor signage and unusual circumstances of this car park not offering card payments; it was entirely reasonable for me to take 9 minutes to go through the 28 steps detailed in my appeal (section 1) before being able to pay for parking: try to find the signage upon entry, talk to the attendant (who gave incorrect information), understand the terms, find a suitable bay, park, look for the pay-and-display machine, try to read the signage by the machine, find out that the machine did not accept card payments, search and fail to find coins, read and understand the pay-by-phone instructions, turn my phone on, download and configure the mobile application, submit credit card details and eventually pay for parking online. All of this whilst trying to ensure the safety of my partner and 2-year-old daughter.

The 2 minutes it took me to leave the parking space and drive out of the car park are also reasonable and well within the grace period set out by the BPA.

The caption on the Operator’s photograph “1. St Ives (P)” shows that it was taken on 18/06/2020 and not at the time of parking on 23/09/2020. It does not prove that the signage was present on 23/09/2020. In any case, the signage shown on this picture is unclear, incomplete and does not display the parking charge. It is manifestly not compliant with the BPA code of practice or POFA 2012.

The “2. Main sign” photograph is simply not dated at all and does not constitute evidence of the sign being either present on 23/09/2020 or even legible from the car park entrance or the bay where I parked.

Similarly, the “Signage Plan” (Pages 1 to 5) is not dated and states the signs are “to be installed". It is absolutely not evidence that said “plan” was executed and that the signs were effectively in place on 23/09/2020.

I therefore respectfully request that my appeal is upheld.

Coupon-mad

Yes, send that. If you lose, you have the facts ready for your defence.  Of course this is all reasonable.  Trouble is, POPLA are not.

wiwan31

Ok thank you, will keep you posted.

nosferatu1001

IF you lose, don't worry. Search the forum on what to do next

wiwan31

nosferatu1001 said:

IF you lose, don't worry. Search the forum on what to do next

Ok noted, thank you for the support.

cobbler1

Don't let the Parking Eye Parasites Win.
I've taken these cowboys on twice and on both occasions my appeal was upheld by POPLA.
My first observation is that no matter how strong your first appeal to Parking Eye - this will be rejected by the internal appeals process - put simply it is not in Parking Eyes interest to accept the initial appeal and they have zero integrity. Parking Eye depend on people not being bothered to submit an appeal to POPLA. It is 100% worth the effort to prepare and submit an appeal to POPLA. The process can take a few months to reach a decision but over 60% of POPLA appeals are upheld and providing you present a reasoned argument you will win.
In my most recent appeal Parking Eye issued me with a demand for payment relating to a 7 minute period at a private land car park. I submitted a defence to POPLA based on this being an unreasonable grace period - i.e. that the 7 minutes I took to find a space and consider whether to accept the T&C's was neither excessive or unreasonable. The parking enforcement operator has to allow sufficient time for a driver to find a space and locate, read and consider the terms and conditions; the regulations stipulate that this period must be a minimum of 5 minutes. However there are many reasons why it would take a driver longer than 5 minutes to read and consider the T&C's. I argued that 5 minutes was insufficient time - this defence was successful. Even if Parking Eye state that the T&C's only allow a five minute grace period and you took for example 12 minutes - providing you can account for the time taken then you will be successful. When submitting a defence avoid any irrelevant mitigation and stick to the facts.
Finally, remember it is for Parking Eye to prove that you breached the T&C's  - you have nothing to lose. Even if your POPLA appeal is unsuccessful the likelihood of them initiating court proceedings is low - they didn't even make a counter submission to POPLA in my case.
Parking Eye rely on people being intimidated by the threatening nature of their correspondence; they rely on people being apathetic and not taking the time to submit a POPLA appeal. Parking Eye are parasites who engage in bullying tactics - Do not let them beat you.

Umkomaas

Even if your POPLA appeal is unsuccessful the likelihood of them initiating court proceedings is low

As the most litigious parking operator over the past 5 years - at one stage issuing 130,000 claims in one year - how do you substantiate that? A POPLA win is the perfect trigger for them to issue proceedings. PE are the one parking operator not to underestimate.

Redx

We have seen quite a few Parking Eye cases on here that went to court and parking eye won in court !!

They usually have all bases covered , especially in court cases , especially when they have won at Popla

To say the likelihood of court is low is cobbler 1s !! 😆

beamerguy

Good for you beating Parking Eye.

Trouble with POPLA is they seem to have replaced real assessors with tea boys and girls
They will be history soon anyway

Regarding PE and their take on grace periods, especially with the problems covid create, the BPA should re-train them on how to be professionals and not cowboys.  .... pigs will fly first though