ANPR Overstay - LIDL & PE - Genuine Shopper Clause?

KeithP

Half_way said:

Doesn't that fail the Beavis test when compared to the black and yellow signage?

I would say so, and it seems very strange that ParkingEye would make that mistake.

ntokmetz

KeithP said:

Half_way said:

Doesn't that fail the Beavis test when compared to the black and yellow signage?

I would say so, and it seems very strange that ParkingEye would make that mistake.

Thank you so much for your help and replies.
What exactly does the above mean?

ntokmetz

Thank you so much for your input and replies so far, I am incredibly grateful
Would an appeal along the lines below be OK? 
Notes:
- When I took the PCN to the local lidl, the local store manager did say that if a customer knows they will or have overstayed, they can let them know on the day and the store "can make it go away"
- The overstay was about 50 mins and I was told that it might be an uphill struggle to fight as it's quite long?

I received from you the PCN with reference number xxx as I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg. No xxx).

I wish to appeal the parking charge. The driver of the vehicle was a genuine Lidl shopper, as proven by the attached receipts from the store on the day and at the time in question.

It was an honest mistake on their part as they were not aware of how long they had spent in the store because not only did they have to shop for two households – due to one having to isolate because of covid – but there were additional delays (on a busy Saturday shopping trip) due to queuing times to get in the store, social distancing and slower moving traffic in the store because of covid measures.

Had they known they had parked longer than allowed on the day, they would have called to the store to sort it out, as they were told that any parking delays of genuine shoppers could be dealt with by the store on the day.

However, as a PCN has been delivered, Lidl advised to contact Parking Eye and appeal by explaining the circumstances and presenting the shopping receipts from the day.

I would therefore request that the charge is waived for the above reasons.

[Not sure whether to include something this as well: Please note that there would be no reason for the driver to use the Lidl car park other than shopping in the store as there are car parks in the vicinity offering two hours free parking

[https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/shirley_southampton_so15/?arriving=202104122230&leaving=202104130030]. 

They were therefore a genuine shopper (also as proven by the attached receipts).]

Thank you

Coupon-mad

It was an honest mistake on their part 

No-one told you to say that. This is not about you taking responsibility for some sort of mistake.  You made no mistake, you were shopping for two families!  Why not add that you have spoken to the Lidl Manager who was supportive and confirmed that they would have extended the time period if asked on the day (but shoppers are not told that is possible!).

I wouldn't bother with this:

[Not sure whether to include something this as well: Please note that there would be no reason for the driver to use the Lidl car park other than shopping in the store as there are car parks in the vicinity offering two hours free parking
[https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/shirley_southampton_so15/?arriving=202104122230&leaving=202104130030]. 

SayNoToPCN

ntokmetz said:

KeithP said:

Half_way said:

Doesn't that fail the Beavis test when compared to the black and yellow signage?

I would say so, and it seems very strange that ParkingEye would make that mistake.

Thank you so much for your help and replies.
What exactly does the above mean?

Beavis, as we usually abbreviate it, refers to a supreme court case from 2015 Parking Eye v Beavis
In this one of the key reasons Parking Eye - yes, the same people as here! - could charge £85 was because their signs wer suprisingly clear, and the parking charge amount was the largest item on the sign

The sign here - a new sign - would not meet those same criteria, and so it could be judged that the sign is insuficient to bind a motorist to a contract

If you stick suitable search terms into Google, you will find images of the signs. 

Parking companies are parasites - without exception - and do things only in their interests, noone elses. So the conclusion you draw is that changing sign designs to be less obvious, wiht more hidden terms and ridiculously small small print that is more words than can be read in the grace period allowed, is to their advantage, and noone elses. They have done so to make more money.

Fruitcake

The sign mentions 90 minutes three times, so a motorist might be forgiven for thinking the next mention of 90 also refers to time instead of £.

ntokmetz

Parking Eye have cancelled my PCN!!! Pretty quickly too! Thank you so so so very much, especially Coupon-Mad, for your expertise and advice. Very much appreciated, I am very grateful! Thank you all :-) 

Le_Kirk

Well done!  Nice outcome.

Umkomaas

Nice one. 👍

MothballsWallet

Fruitcake said:

Umkomaas said:

New livery cf what I've seen previously. Definitely a new PE logo near the foot of the sign.  Looks like a bent halo above it - Freudian perhaps?

It looks more like a cowboy lasoo. 

Is it an infinity symbol, a Mobius strip or a very confused ouroboros snake?