ParkingEye PCN fightback

KeithP

Snath said:

yes, I was in the parking lot for 10 minutes and 3 seconds and didn't park. Why is it 5 minutes because I thought the grace period on entry was 10 mins? 

What's a parking lot?  

Redx

Download and read clause 13 of the BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020

That document tells you what they are arguing , it was different in the 2018 version which you are quoting

It is your job to research these things , like checking the relevant CoP

It's not about what you think , Popla require evidence , the law , judgments etc , facts , not conjecture

But a judge may decide differently , in court , if you articulate your case properly

Snath

Yes, I see now, thanks @Redx and @Coupon-mad, PE does in their evidence pack show that I have not parked the vehicle in order to apply the 5 minute rule.

PE Evidence - 

Whitelist Lookup - <DLXXXX>

Whitelist Name	Plate	Description	Start Date/Time	End Date/Time	Input Date/Time	Duration
No results

 

The above system extract displays all permits, payments for parking, and terminal entries relating to the vehicle on the date of the parking event.

 

Please note, if no results are displayed, this confirms that no permit, payment, or terminal entries were recorded. 


Other areas of evidence:

My argument - The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

PE evidence - It must also be noted that any person who makes a contract in his own name without disclosing the existence of a principal, or who, though disclosing the fact that he is acting as an agent on behalf of a principal, renders himself personally liable on the contract, is entitled to enforce it against the other contracting party. (Fairlie v Fenton (1870) LR 5 Exch 169). It follows that a lawful contract between ourselves and the motorist will be enforceable by us as a party to that contract


My argument - 7. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

PE Evidence - We can confirm that the above site is on private land, is not council owned and that we have written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices at this site from the landowner (or landowner’s agent).

Please find enclosed document showing that on the date of the parking event we had authority to issue and pursue a Parking Charge to this vehicle. 

Please be advised that in clause 4.4 of the redacted contract inserted into Section G, the clause advises the following:

‘This Agreement may be terminated by either party on expiry of the Initial Term by the provision of at least 30 days’ written notice to the other party, prior to expiry of the Initial Term (for each year of the Initial term). If no such notice of termination is received by either party, this Agreement shall automatically continue in force for a further period equivalent to the Initial Term under the same terms and conditions contained herein unless terminated pursuant to Clause 12, and this same Agreement renewal process shall apply for every subsequent cycle thereafter.’

We can confirm this contract has not been terminated by either party, so the contract was effective on the date the charge was incurred.

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

On a side note - the signage is terrible, still lots of small print. Also, the entry and exit is a busy road where you have to wait a long time to exit. The image they have is one does not show where the images where taken from. Can I argue the case where PE cannot prove whether I was in the car park or was waiting (with my indicator signs on) to exit the car park.

Anything worth going after? 

Umkomaas

My argument - The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

Does the PE Notice to Keeper meet the standards required of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4)?

Can I argue the case where PE cannot prove whether I was in the car park or was waiting (with my indicator signs on) to exit the car park.

What reasons were there otherwise for the vehicle being in the car park?  Hazards/indicator on, engine still running, people still in the vehicle for the entire duration is urban myth territory for 'proving' a vehicle wasn't parked. 

Redx

Waiting to exit the car park and being prevented from doing so due to a high volume of traffic or some other reason is frustration of contract , it's also not parking , so in the old CoP it was a minimum of 10 minutes

But you cannot introduce new arguments , only rebut their WS

Snath

thanks @Umkomaas - The NTK unfortunately wasn't golden ticket, so there was POFA statement at the back. Yes, the vehicle wasn't parked. I got in to pickup my family, strap them in child seats, fed and watered and then left. We were in the vehicle throughout.

Thanks @Redx - Why is that frustration of contract when the images in my opinion are at the exit of the car park (with indicator on to a busy road) when there is clear intention to leave. The images primarily focus on the car and immediate surroundings which is outside the periphery of the car park in my opinion. Shouldn't they provide more images showing me within the perimeter of the car park from minutes 5-10?

I have the following text in my popla challenge. Can I use this to rebut without introducing new arguments?

"the time record created by the ANPR at the “departure time” is allegedly at the exit. It does not therefore give any reasonable allowance for time taken to exit the parking space and reach the exit. This is clearly a variable that depends on other activity within the car park (people parking or queueing at the exit). Nor does it clearly show nor make allowance for how long it takes to exit onto the road should there be cars and pedestrians passing the exit. The system clearly makes no reasonable allowance for this and therefore no grace period has been allowed." 

thanks once again for all your timely help and expertise. If it weren't for this forum I wouldn't even bother as I know I won't stand a chance on my own against these scumbags.

Redx

It's an unregulated cowboy industry , so no regulations to cover all arguments , currently they use time on site as the benchmark , plus a CoP setting out grace periods , but must comply with various laws and court case judgments , due to contract law ( which is complicated )

If you cannot exit a car park through no fault of your own , your parking contract becomes frustrated , you cannot complete the contract until it's possible to do so , hence it's frustration of contract , waiting at an exit for a barrier to be removed is an intention to leave and an intention to complete the contract

No point arguing what you think should happen , you had the opportunity to tell the government that last month , like we did

Nothing will change until summer 2022 , when the new mandatory CoP arrives and lots of changes and regulation will be in force

Your rebuttal allows 2000 characters only , not words , so you cannot say much in rebuttal , pointless trying to stop the tide , Canute failed !

Snath

Just submitted the following rebuttal for the evidence - didn't get time to review nor did have any hope, so did what I could:

Parking Eye's car park signs on the Pleasure Land site (as seen in their own evidence) is inadequate and illegible in a number of ways not least due to the sheer amount of text that must be read. The terms on the signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from any reasonable distance such that it cannot be read from within a parked vehicle especially if parked in the centre. There is nothing to state how close the car was parked to a sign. It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract

The image timestamps PE have recorded on exit do no take into account the inability of the driver to exit on to a busy road whilst exiting the car park. The images also provide no account for whether the car was inside or outside the boundaries of the car park as there are no barriers in operation. Parking Eye should submit proof showing the car within the car park during the contract breach period.

No evidence provided to prove the accuracy of the APNR systems. 

Hence, I argue grace periods are insufficient & entry/exit times inaccurate.

PE state in their case summary that grace periods are inline with BPA CoP but PE fail to reveal what the site-specific graced periods are at Pleasure land car park. This information appears to have been redacted in their basic supply agreement.

Contract is blurry and only predictable areas are legible with the majority of the terms blanked out. Zooming in makes no difference

ParkingEye has not provided any evidence (only comments) to prove that the contract that gives them authority from the landowner to issue and pursue the Parking Charge is current and active.

Companies Act 2006 requires two signatures from each party or a director's signature and a witness. This contract complies with neither and therefore fails the requirements

The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

I will post the outcome when it arrives in a few days. thanks!

NiJella

What's the outcome @Snath? (Sorry if I've missed it somewhere else). You put a heck of a lot of time and energy into this...I hope you won?!