POPLA Appeal - ParkingEye PCN 11 minutes "overstay"

D_P_Dance

Their signs are pants, they are not building a nuclear power station, have you read this?

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

cobbler1

I will never pay the exorbitant demands made by these cowboy parking operators. They are chancers; a sufficient number of those issued a PCN will just pay to avoid the hassle / time / inconvenience of going through an appeal process. Always take these clowns on by submitting a reasonable and structured appeal. You will win if you take the time to present a reasoned evidence based defence. Good luck with the appeal. It is also worth noting that odious parking eye employees also post on these forums to discourage people from appealing.

Umkomaas

It is also worth noting that odious parking eye employees also post on these forums to discourage people from appealing.

Posting on behalf of a company without declaring to MSE Towers is forbidden - if you know who they are, as you seem to suggest, report them and get them banned. 

wiwan31

My POPLA Appeal has been rejected:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that no consideration or grace periods have been considered, breaching the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states that the BPA Code of Practice contradicts the PAS232 BSI Government Draft defining the new statutory Code of Practice. The appellant advises that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant has quoted section 7.2 and section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant refers to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant also refers to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The appellant advises that they want proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on the date and time from the angle of the driver’s perspective. The appellant states that full terms cannot be read from a car. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked. In response to the operator’s evidence pack, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. The appellant states that the photographs provided are dated 18 June 20202 and not at the time of the parking event, it does not prove that the signage was present on 23 September 2020. The appellant has provided a document expanding their grounds of appeal and a copy of their paybyphone receipt and photographs of the car park as evidence in support of their appeal to POPLA.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

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. In this case, the operator has provided both PDF document versions and photographic evidence of the signage displayed on site. From the evidence provided by the operator, the terms and conditions clearly state: “Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week” The motorist is also advised that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) being issued for £100. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN for either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted. Considering the information provided, it appears that there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and this evidence suggests that the terms have been breached. I will now examine all of the information provided to determine if it makes a material difference to the validity of the PCN. This site is monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras and shows the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 12:28 and exiting at 16:39; a total stay of 4 hours and 11 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of their site data, which shows that the appellant’s registration, FE12 EOK, had a payment made for it at 12:37 to cover a parking period of 4 hours. The appellant’s case is that no consideration or grace periods have been considered, breaching the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states that the BPA Code of Practice contradicts the PAS232 BSI Government Draft defining the new statutory Code of Practice. Whilst I note the appellant’s comment that the BPA Code of Practice contradicts the PAS232 BSI Government Draft, however, it must be noted that the role of POPLA is to assess whether the PCN has been issued correctly and whether the operator has adhered to requirements set by the BPA Code of Practice. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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.” However, section 13.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place.” In this case the operator has provided a copy of their ANPR images which show that the appellant entered the site at 12:28 and exited at 16:39; a totals stay of 4 hours and 11 minutes. The operator has provided a copy of their site data which shows that the appellant paid for 4 hours parking at 12:37, this matches the copy of the receipt provided by the appellant. This shows that the appellant took 9 minutes from entering the site to make payment. I have reviewed the site map provided by the operator and am satisfied that the 5-minute consideration time is a reasonable amount of time to allow a motorist to park, read the signage and make payment. As the appellant remained on site for 4 hours and 11 minutes, a parking event took place and therefore, the 5-minute consideration time does not apply. This site is monitored by ANPR cameras which means that the total stay is calculated from the point of entry to the point of exit, therefore, when making payment the appellant needs to take into account the time that they entered the site. The appellant needed to have either paid extra to take into account the 9 minutes it took them to make payment or left the site 9 minutes earlier than the expiry time shown on their receipt. The appellant advises that there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant has quoted section 7.2 and section 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association’s (BPA) Code of Practice outlines to operators, “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”. Additionally, Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice advises that POPLA will accept witness statements in place of full landowner agreement contracts. The operator has provided a witness statement, which was signed on 24 September 2020 and shows that the operator had authority to operator on the land between March 2020 and 24 September 2020. The witness statement provided meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking event. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed, it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while someone operates on their land without their permission. The appellant states that there is no evidence of the period parked. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments, however, the operator has provided a copy of their ANPR images which show the vehicle entering and exiting the car park. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. However, as the appellant has not provided evidence to demonstrate otherwise, I will work on the basis that the technology is accurate. The appellant states that the signs are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself. The appellant refers to the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant also refers to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The appellant advises that they want proof of where the car was parked and how their signs appeared on the date and time from the angle of the driver’s perspective. The appellant states that full terms cannot be read from a car. In response to the operator’s evidence pack, the appellant has reiterated their grounds of appeal. The appellant states that the photographs provided are dated 18 June 20202 and not at the time of the parking event, it does not prove that the signage was present on 23 September 2020. The appellant has provided photographs of the car park as evidence in support of their appeal to POPLA. As the appellant has questioned the signage at the site, I therefore, need to determine with the signage at the site meets the requirements set by the BPA Code of Practice. Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states; “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “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 provided photographs of the signage at the site, which includes a photograph of the entrance sign and a copy of their site map which demonstrates that there is signage throughout the site. The signs clearly show that failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a parking charge of £100. From the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied therefore, that the signage at the site meets the requirements set by the BPA Code of Practice and that the appellant had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions before agreeing to the contract. The photographs provided by the appellant also demonstrate that there is signage at the site as they can be seen on the walls which match the site map provided by the operator, the entrance sign can also be seen in the photographs provided too. I note the appellant’s comment regarding the date shown on the photographs, however, this indicates that the signage has been in place since 18 June 2020 and from the photographs provided by the appellant, I am satisfied that the signage was in place at the time of the parking event. There is no requirement for the operator to provide photographs of the signage taken on the day of the parking event. The driver of a vehicle does not need to have read the terms and conditions, the only requirement is that the driver is afforded the opportunity to read and understand the contract before accepting it. It is a motorist responsibility to ensure that when they enter a car park, they have understood the terms and conditions before leaving their vehicle, by parking and remaining the appellant accepted the contract offered. It must also be noted that the terms of parking are listed on the signs within the car park showing the contractual rates. These charges are in line with the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If the driver of the vehicle chooses to ignore the terms and continue to park, they are accepting liability and are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge to the operator. There is no requirement to add any additional allowance. In this case, the driver entered the car park in full acceptance of the terms of parking clearly displayed. Terms and conditions are offered; and by remaining in the car park, these are accepted. It is the driver’s responsibility seek out the terms of parking, to ensure that they understand them and to ensure that the vehicle is parked in accordance with the terms and conditions of that site. Therefore, from the evidence provided by both parties, I conclude that the operator issued the PCN correctly and as such, the appeal is refused.

wiwan31

What would be the next step from here?

KeithP

Is there anything in particular you want us to read in that slab of text you have thrown at us?

KeithP

wiwan31 said:

What would be the next step from here?

Read more of the NEWBIES thread.

Perhaps the bit after...

What will happen if I lose at POPLA or IAS?

Redx

wiwan31 said:

What would be the next step from here?

Is it not obvious ??

Either you pay parking eye £100 as the full default tariff to make it go away

Or you explain it to a judge , in court , and the judgment will either be in your favour of parking eye's favour

If Parking Eye win in court , you will pay approx £175 within the 30 days allowed to stop a CCJ affecting your credit rating

wiwan31

KeithP said:

Is there anything in particular you want us to read in that slab of text you have thrown at us?

I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow. I was just posting the result of the appeal for reference, as I thought people that had contributed so far or that were going through a similar process might be interested.

wiwan31

KeithP said:

wiwan31 said:

What would be the next step from here?

Read more of the NEWBIES thread.

Perhaps the bit after...

What will happen if I lose at POPLA or IAS?

Thank you for your suggestion. I think I'll just give up, I really don't have the energy for this.

Thank you very much to all that have helped.