POPLA appeal - ParkingEye £100 fine for spending 10 minutes in a car park without parking.

the_midnight_Wolfboy

Dear all,

Back in August my wife decided to drive into a ParkingEye carpark in Margate - decided it was an awful carpark in disrepair, and left. Total time in car park was 10 minutes 33 seconds. ParkingEye decided to send my wife a lovely NtK, initial appeal failed, now writing to POPLA

Could you kindly review my draft appeal and check for any red flags or big misses?

-----

Dear POPLA,

 

On the 05 August 2021, ParkingEye Ltd. issued a parking charge notice highlighting that the above mentioned vehicle had been recorded via their automatic number plate recognition system for “…either not purchasing the appropriate parking time or by remaining at the car park for longer than permitted…”

 

As the appellant I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:

 

I.              Consideration Period: BPA Code of Practice – Non-Compliance

II.            No Evidence of Period Parked

III.           Poor and inadequate signage

IV.           No evidence of Landowner Authority

 

I.              Insufficient consideration period

The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at 16.17 and driving out at 16:27 on the same date.

The driver decided not to park at this location due to confusing signage and poor condition of the car park tarmac – therefore no parking event has occurred.

The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) 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”

It is therefore argued that the duration of the alleged ‘parking’ in question (which ParkingEye claim was 10 minutes ) is not an unreasonable consideration period, given:

The ANPR records the “arrival time” at the point when the vehicle is alleged to be entering the car park and does not show if the car park is busy. While waiting for others to park this would reasonably cause the driver to spend several minutes finding a suitable parking space before parking the car, locating the signs, reading and attempting to understand them, checking the payment methods that can be used, ensuring correct coins and obtaining a ticket.

The lack of sufficient entrance signs and specific parking-terms signage throughout the car park in question and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.

The lengthiness of ParkingEyes’ signage (in terms of word count) all written in tiny text the across of the sign [refence X]

Recently (late November 2017) there was a not dissimilar POPLA Appeal (versus ParkingEye – Tower Road, Newquay) which was successful on the grounds that the assessor believed 11 minutes was a “reasonable grace period” and that “by seeking alternate parking arrangements, the appellant has demonstrated that he did not accept the conditions of the parking contract.”

 

 

II.            No Evidence of Period Parked

The ANPR system in LIDO 2 Margate can only register entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state

I.              That the car was indeed parked

II.            The period that the car was parked.

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was actually parked. If ParkingEye are unable to prove if the driver did park, there can be no breach of contract.

29.4 of the BPA CoP states the notice must specify “ the period of parking to which the notice relates”. The notice in question states “time in car park”, not period of actual parking.

Given that ParkingEye is charging £100 for 10 minutes of parking, even a small error in the period of time parked could have a material impact on the amount of the charge.

 

III.           Poor and inadequate signage

There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

BPAs CoP 19.2 states “you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area”

Per Appendix B of the BPA CoP “A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area.”

Lido 2 Margate lacks any kind of clear entrance sign [reference X], therefore there is insufficient signage to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract.

In fact, it is impossible to read any of the signs before entering the car park and being photographed by the ANPR system, at which point ParkingEye presumes you have entered into a contract.

There is no visible signage containing the terms and conditions at only available payment machine on the car park. The sign that is there, is unremarkable and does not mention any potential parking charge or the fact the motorist is entering into a contract.

IV.          No evidence of Landowner Authority

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

----

D_P_Dance

It is not a finje.  PE's signs are pants, please read the newbies, read this,
 and complain to your MP.

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

1505grandad

"The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states........."

You should be using/quoting from BPA CoP V8 dated January 2020

the_midnight_Wolfboy

Thank you for the feedback - really appreciate it , I will make the updates suggested.

Coupon-mad

Can you show us the PCN instead, not the reminder, in case it's a Golden ticket, or have you checked?

Do you have proof of parking and paying elsewhere within minutes, as POPLA is an evidence based service?

the_midnight_Wolfboy

Coupon-mad said:

Can you show us the PCN instead, not the reminder, in case it's a Golden ticket, or have you checked?

Do you have proof of parking and paying elsewhere within minutes, as POPLA is an evidence based service?

We never actually received the original PCN - first paperwork we recieved was the 'reminder'. I did look at the Golden ticket in the newbies thread - main issue is my wife implied she was in the car in the first stage appeal to PE.

That's a great idea, I can use my wife's google map history to show we parked in another location!

Coupon-mad

Perfect.  It may well also show she was actually on site for less than 10 minutes.  Seen that before.

Le_Kirk

We never actually received the original PCN - first paperwork we received was the 'reminder'. I did look at the Golden ticket in the newbies thread - main issue is my wife implied she was in the car in the first stage appeal to PE.

She could have been a passenger!

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

the_midnight_Wolfboy

Dear all

ParkingEye have provided their Operators evidence - it's about 50 pages of blanket garbage - half of which is corrupt and does not display when opened.

Their proof of Landowner authority is over five years old

P Eley also resigned from the company four years ago

Stour Side Investments appears to be in administration

Also - am I interpreting this correctly - the notice of adminstrators progress report on Companies House states that the Lido 2 land is no longer owned by Stour Side Investments, but now owned by the co-adminstrators - surely this means the document provided by ParkingEye is not acceptable?

Castle

the_midnight_Wolfboy said:

Dear all

ParkingEye have provided their Operators evidence - it's about 50 pages of blanket garbage - half of which is corrupt and does not display when opened.

Their proof of Landowner authority is over five years old

P Eley also resigned from the company four years ago

Stour Side Investments appears to be in administration

Also - am I interpreting this correctly - the notice of adminstrators progress report on Companies House states that the Lido 2 land is no longer owned by Stour Side Investments, but now owned by the co-adminstrators - surely this means the document provided by ParkingEye is not acceptable?

No it's Stour Side Developments Ltd (Company Number -3449710), who owns the LIDO 2 car park and are in administration. According to their Accounts, Stour Side Investments have never owned any land.