PCN – ParkingEye – Novotel Ipswich Centre – EV Charging

Stormcaller

Hi all,

Let me start by saying that this is the first Parking Charge Notice (PCN) I have received and my early treatment of this has not been best practice. I have since thoroughly read the newbies thread as well as several threads detailing previous cases. In doing so I have become aware of several mistakes that I could have avoided, had I found this forum sooner.

To save people the trouble, I will highlight some of the issues with my actions to date below. Please refrain from further criticism of these unless I’ve missed something important – we want to encourage people to feel free to post here without fear of being criticised for their ignorance.

Situation

• While returning home from visiting family on 17th July 2021 I stopped to use the electric vehicle charging point situated outside the entrance of Novotel Ipswich Centre. I had a look for signage that would explain whether I had to take any extra actions in addition to paying for charging and found no such signage. I proceeded to charge my vehicle on the belief that paying at the charging point was all that was required of me. I charged my vehicle for 35 minutes, remaining in my vehicle the entire time, then paid at the charging point and went on my way.
• I received a PCN from ParkingEye on 21st July following the event (see page 8 of the redacted evidence pack below)
• I made an appeal via ParkingEye’s internal appeals process described on the back of the PCN - this appeal was rejected
• I submitted my appeal to POPLA on the grounds that I was a customer on site
• I have received an evidence pack provided to POPLA by ParkingEye and am drafting a response to the evidence (see redacted evidence pack below)
• I explained the situation to the Novotel staff on 20th September (today) who suggested they may be able to contact ParkingEye and get the PCN cancelled

Mistakes Made So Far

1. Informing ParkingEye / POPLA that I was the driver – the first PCN communication seems to adequately reference PoFA so I’m not sure this did too much damage but was not best practice
2. Complaining to Novotel late – it would have been better if I had done this sooner

Commenting on Operator Evidence

This is the stage I am currently at and I could benefit from some support. I wanted to attach the evidence pack provided by ParkingEye to POPLA, which I have been requested to provide comments on, however I am too new to this forum to be able to post links. I can't link it here but if you're interested in seeing the evidence document, I've made a !!!!!! ending in PCNEvidence.

These are the grounds on which I am planning to comment on the evidence provided:

• Under ‘Authority’ on page 4 there is no evidence that they have authority to issue PCNs at this site, merely an assertion that such authority exists. I would expect there to be a contract or something of that nature to back up this assertion
• ParkingEye have failed to provide evidence that they have authority to issue PCNs in the specifically marked electric vehicle charging bay which appears to be operated by BP Chargemaster
• The car park aerial photo on page 26 shows that there are no signs next to the EV charging point. Looking at more recent imagery, it is clear that the photo provided is outdated – a quick search on Google maps shows a more recent photo that matches the area today and clearly shows the EV charging space marked in blue
• None of the signs shown in the submitted evidence make any reference to requirements when charging electric vehicles. If electric vehicles that are charging are expected to pay twice, that should be made clear on the signage
• On page 5 they state: “You have stated that you do not believe that the Parking Charge amount is a pre-estimation of loss, or that it is extravagant, unfair or unreasonable.” when this is not a claim that I have made

I would welcome any feedback on the comments I have drafted above, or suggestions for additional comments based on the case to date. I have until Wednesday (22nd September) to submit my comments so am intending to submit them tomorrow (Tuesday 21st Sept) to avoid missing the submission window.

Warm regards,

Stormcaller

D_P_Dance

PE's signs are pants, read this and complain to your MP.,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

Redx

You can post a dead link , replacing http with hxxp , to the file on a hosting site , like Dropbox etc ,but mse won't let you attach it here

Coupon-mad

Under ‘Authority’ on page 4 there is no evidence that they have authority to issue PCNs at this site, merely an assertion that such authority exists. I would expect there to be a contract or something of that nature to back up this assertion.

Only if you put them to proof of landowner authority in your POPLA appeal.

What evidence did you provide to POPLA and did you make it clear you were using an EV charging bay and show photos to prove there were no contractual signs at that bay?

You can't add evidence now and you only have six days,  not seven, because the day that POPLA contacted you was day one.  You don't count on seven, you count on six.

Stormcaller

Let's see if this 'link' works: hxxps://drive.google.com/file/d/1MNGgP9t5GztRW1hJvsb-Ye-zuanGuDjD/view?usp=sharing

I shared a screenshot of my banking app showing a transaction from Chargemaster that day and provided photos of the Chargemaster charging point showing that there was no signage in or around the bay.

Thanks for the heads up that I only have 6 days - I'll submit my comments today. 

Coupon-mad

That link works:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MNGgP9t5GztRW1hJvsb-Ye-zuanGuDjD/view?usp=sharing

Like I said, they don't have to prove landowner authority if your appeal didn't raise that issue.  Their signs themselves are clear that tariffs apply but I would say inthe comments:

- It has not been evidenced by that 'parking' tariff terms were displayed at the EV bay or where that was on the map.  

- An alternative contract was on offer and accepted.  A £15 tariff was paid, as per the EV bay sign.

- The appellant's photos are the only evidence of the EV bay and the only tariff terms shown there are for charging.  No driver using an EV charging point would presume that they must pay two tariffs.  If that WAS to be the case, a P/Eye sign about their tariffs would have to be prominently placed beside the sign about EV charging tariffs.

- P/Eye have showed the disabled bay sign, so why omit the EV bay sign, which MUST contain all terms and fees, especially given that many drivers sit in the car. so must be afforded the opportunity to see all terms from the driving seat while charging.

Stormcaller

Thanks a lot for your help. I've submitted comments in line with your suggestions to POPLA, with a few wording tweaks.

I've also received a response from Novotel saying that thay have cancelled the PCN, however I have not received confirmation of this from either ParkingEye or POPLA so will continue my appeal until I receive such confirmation.

I'll let you know how this proceeds.

Coupon-mad

Let's hope P/Eye don't push back because "waaah, we have spent money on POPLA!"... Well, you should make it clearer to victims that complaining to your client landowner is an option and not just fruitless appeal stages, then P/Eye!

Stormcaller

Looks like we've reached a happy resolution:

"Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW have told us they do not wish to contest the appeal. This means that your appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge."

Thanks for all of your help

Coupon-mad

Aha, they backtracked and saved themselves the POPLA fee!  Great stuff!

Next time, remember that landowner complaint is always plan A and sometimes the right for a landowner to cancel a PCN is time bound in their contract (e.g. some contracts say the landowner can cancel xx PCNs per month, or that they can cancel only within the first 14 days after PCN issue).