ParkingEye

yung

Operator Name

Parking Eye Ltd including Car Parking Partnership (CPP) - EW

decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Amy Smith

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for reason: ‘By 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 their appeal was rejected on the basis of insufficient tariff. They say that they requested a copy of the transaction as they believe they paid the correct amount of £5.00 for four hours parking time but their appeal was rejected. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. This includes a photograph of the tariffs and a copy of the rejection letter. The appellant has provided comments after reviewing the operator’s evidence pack. Their motorist’s comments raised several further grounds of appeal such as: • It was dark and raining when they arrived and they checked the sign, returned to the vehicle to get change and then had queue to use the machine. They say that they had to use a torch to enter the vehicle registration and are confident they entered five £1.00 coins. They say that the operator has not mentioned how many coins were inserted. • They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.1 regarding a consideration period and section 13.3 regarding a grace period. They mention that the guidance is legally binding and forms part of the terms of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

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. When entering a private car park, it is the expectation of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the particular site must be stipulated on the signs displayed within the car park to allow a motorist to decide if they wish to accept the contract or not. The operator has provided images of the signage laid out at the site. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Up to 2 hours £3.00…Up to 4 hours £5.00…Parking tariffs apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle entering the site at 17:55:51 and exiting at 20:07:03, totalling a stay of two hours and 11 minutes spent at site. The operator maintains a list of vehicles that have made a payment. The operator has provided a copy of this list that shows that when searching for the appellant’s vehicle it was registered against a payment covering two hours parking time. The PCN was issued as the vehicle was parked on this land for two hours and 11 minutes, however the operator could only locate a payment for two hours of their stay. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant’s case is that their appeal was rejected on the basis of insufficient tariff. They say that they requested a copy of the transaction as they believe they paid the correct amount of £5.00 for four hours parking time but their appeal was rejected. The appellant has provided evidence to support their appeal. This includes a photograph of the tariffs and a copy of the rejection letter. The appellant has provided comments after reviewing the operator’s evidence pack. Their motorist’s comments raised several further grounds of appeal such as: • It was dark and raining when they arrived and they checked the sign, returned to the vehicle to get change and then had queue to use the machine. They say that they had to use a torch to enter the vehicle registration and are confident they entered five £1.00 coins. They say that the operator has not mentioned how many coins were inserted. • They mention the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 13.1 regarding a consideration period and section 13.3 regarding a grace period. They mention that the guidance is legally binding and forms part of the terms of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The burden of proof lies with the operator to prove that the PCN has been issued correctly. The BPA monitors how operators treat motorists and has its own Code of Practice setting out the criteria operators must meet. It states in section 13.3 in relation to a grace period after a contract has expired: “Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.” The appellant’s payment was made at 18:03 which is eight minutes after arrival at 17:55:51. This payment covered two hours parking time, expiring at 20:03. The appellant’s vehicle exited the site at 20:07::03 which is roughly three minutes after the time expired. The time added up equates to 11 minutes parking time. Having reviewed the time between purchasing the ticket and exiting after the ticket expired, I am satisfied that a grace period in line with 13.3 should be granted on this occasion. POPLA’s remit is to determine whether the PCN has been issued correctly. On this occasion I am unable to conclude that the operator has correctly issued the parking charge. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

Coupon-mad

Nice result!  Unusual too.

POPLA correctly and sensibly interpreting 'at least 10 minutes' to include eleven minutes when it's dark and rainy and things take that bit longer.

yung

Coupon-mad said:

Nice result!  Unusual too.

POPLA correctly and sensibly interpreting 'at least 10 minutes' to include eleven minutes when it's dark and rainy and things take that bit longer.

Notice PE used the time of entering and leaving the site instead of the time the ticket was purchased,
 "The appellant’s payment was made at 18:03 which is eight minutes after arrival at 17:55:51. This payment covered two hours parking time, expiring at 20:03"