POPLA refused, ParkingEye PCN for Hilton Hotel.

fivestarsamz

Hello guys, so I kind of have a weird situation on this PCN with a lot of mistakes done by the driver and the RK... I have offered to help them save £100. So just to clarify, i am not the RK or the driver. 

Background:
The driver is a minicab (private hire) driver. The driver picked passengers up from Hilton Hotel in Stanstead for one of his jobs. PCN states that the driver was caught by ANPR and that the vehicle was in the car park for 14 minutes. 

RK appealed to ParkingEye saying that the driver did not park in the car park and was only there to pick up the passengers. Even sent proof of the job sheet for that job at that time. (obviously) This got rejected by PE and they sent a POPLA code. 

The next part is kind of embarrassing to say as I know how much of a no-no this is, but..... so the RK sent a similar appeal to POPLA as well (i know... silly). The decision was that the appeal was rejected. (I will post the decision below)

Now, the weird part is this. The RK just wants to pay the fine (aka the invoice) of £100. He completely refuses to go to court because he sees it as a time waste and doesn't have the capacity to go to court. He also does not want to risk not paying in case the fine increases and he would end up paying more because if he gets the claim form from the court, he will just pay it and not fight in court. Am I making sense? So my question at this stage is, what are his options? If he doesn't do anything, will it increase if he gets the debt recovery letter or the claim court letter, or will it stay at £100 if he does get the debt recovery or claim court, and he can just pay that £100 to make it go away? He already regrets doing the POPLA appeal because he lost the opportunity to pay £60. 

Another mistake that was done was go to Hilton Hotel AFTER the POPLA appeal. So the driver did go back to the Hilton hotel to see if they can get it canceled. They gave an email address to get in contact with. The reply from the email was that because it is been taken to POPLA, PE would not cancel it due to the cost incurred by PE. 

I know the RK should have come to MSE (or me atleast) before he made the appeals but I mean it is what it is. What are the options now? If court is not on his table, and he doesn't want it to go higher than £100, is his only option to pay?




There's more! The POPLA decision comments were kind of contradicting and incorrect. The driver did not pay anything. On the PE PCN, the entrance time was 09:17:52, and the departure time was 09:32:45. 

I will post the whole decision at the end for context but the main points that they said that I want to highlight are the following:

The parking operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 19:17:52 and exiting at 09:32:45. A total stay of 14 minutes

I guess you can say that is a typo from the POPLA Assessor. Fine... I can give them that. 

Next point: 

The parking operator keeps a list of vehicles that paid to park on the day in question and I can see that the appellant paid for two hours parking.

This is not true. No one paid for two hours of parking for this vehicle on that day. 

It later says this: 

The driver was on site for 14 minutes, so a payment of £6 was needed. When using a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the terms and conditions. As the driver did not purchase a valid pay and display ticket, the terms of the site were broken.

Clear contradiction. 
Does any of this mean anything in our favour?

The full decision by POPLA:

When a parking operator has terms and conditions at its site, parking at the site might mean that the driver has entered a contract. The terms and conditions of the site are set out in the signs. Photographs of the signs show the terms and conditions. Signs state: “Up to 1 hour £6.00…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 parking operator has provided photographs from its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, showing the appellant’s vehicle entering the site at 19:17:52 and exiting at 09:32:45. A total stay of 14 minutes. The parking operator keeps a list of vehicles that paid to park on the day in question and I can see that the appellant paid for two hours parking. It appears a contract between the driver and the parking operator was formed, and the parking operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. The appellant says that the driver went to pick up passengers, who were customers of the hotel, so the vehicle was not parked. A motorist does not need to get out of their car to be parked. When they enter the site with the intention to gain utility, such as picking up or dropping off, they are considered parked and are bound by the terms of the site At this site, all motorists need to pay for their time on site. I do not dispute that the driver was picking up passengers and I can see that the appellant has provided a copy of the job sheet, but cab drivers still need to pay to use this site. Unless signs specifically state that cab drivers can drop off an pick up customers for free, it should not be assumed that this is the case. The driver was on site for 14 minutes, so a payment of £6 was needed. When using a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the terms and conditions. As the driver did not purchase a valid pay and display ticket, the terms of the site were broken. The appellant says that it is unfair to receive a PCN when no parking had occurred. I appreciate that the appellant feels that it is unfair to receive a PCN, but the parking operator is within its right to issue a PCN to any motorist that breaches its terms. The appellant has provided comments in response to the parking operator’s evidence; however, some of the comments do not relate to the original grounds of appeal. The appellant was invited to comment on the parking operator’s evidence; however, they were made aware that no new grounds of appeal would be accepted. As such, I am not required to address the additional points raised in the comments. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear and that the driver broke them by not purchasing a valid pay and display ticket. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal.

Sorry for such a long post, but thank you for your guys help!

Coupon-mad

Take the complaint to the Hilton Head Office and state how this is driving away taxis from the site, and that he wants to resolve it and offers £20 that he requires the Hilton to offer to P/Eye on his behalf, in the event that their agent continues to refuse to cancel the charge. Hilton should be aware that the fact they've gone through POPLA has not stopped P/Eye from cancelling PCNs for more robust and customer-orientated landowners who have insisted, including other hotels, as reported online several times.  Surely ParkingEye can reconsider, as a gesture of goodwill if nothing else, or this case will go to the press to warn other taxi drivers to boycott this location.


Re the POPLA Decision:
I expect it is a pay & display car park because the POPLA Assessor has quoted from the sign.  To have got this wrong they'd have had to have quoted from the wrong sign. 

Which Hilton?  Can you see the signs on Google Streetview or can he still see them in the POPLA Evidence pack from P/Eye?

Fruitcake

In the complaint to the Hilton UK CEO, point out that dropping off or picking up is not parking as defined by the judge in the appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard, and that ParkingEye are fully aware of this. ANPR cameras do not record parking time, only time and site, and cannot determine the difference between a parking event and a hotel drop-off/pick-up. This is one of the reasons why ANPR systems are prohibited by the UK Government for monitoring council car parks, but unregulated private parking companies use ANPR because the system flaws generate income.


The motorist should also complain to their MP about his, and about the damage ANPR systems do to taxi and delivery divers.

fivestarsamz

Thanks guys, I'll send a complaint to the Head office and the CEO of hilton. 

Coupon-mad said:

Re the POPLA Decision:
I expect it is a pay & display car park because the POPLA Assessor has quoted from the sign.  To have got this wrong they'd have had to have quoted from the wrong sign. 

Which Hilton?  Can you see the signs on Google Streetview or can he still see them in the POPLA Evidence pack from P/Eye?

This is the Hampton by Hilton London Stansted Airport. I cant access the POPLA evidence pack because the case is closed. Google streetview doesn't help aswell. 



OKay so I have written a complaint letter, tell me what you guys think? Just a brief read is fine just to make sure im not doing anything wrong.

Do you guys think i should give them a deadline for a reply. something like .

I hope we can resolve this case without any further escalation. I expect a reply of termination within 7/14 days. I look forward to hearing a reply from you. 

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you regarding a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that I received from your agents, ParkingEye.

The PCN number is XXXXXXXXX

The incident refers to the time where the driver of the vehicle, who is a minicab (private hire) driver was visiting the Hampton by Hilton Hotel in London Stansted Airport to pick up a passenger, who was also your customer, for one of his jobs. The driver did not park the vehicle within any of the dedicated parking space (attributed by white lines) and was waiting in the car for the passenger to come from your hotel. The driver only stayed within the car park for 14 minutes (which is a normal amount of time for a minicab/taxi driver to wait for) and they were not aware of any payment required for this short of a time, as the signs were not clear enough. I have attached a redacted job sheet to prove my case.  

I must mention that dropping off or picking up is not parking as defined by the judge, His Honour Judge J Harris QC, in the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, and ParkingEye are fully aware of this. ANPR Camera do not record parking time, and only record the time of arrival and departure from the location site, and therefore it cannot determine the difference between a parking event and a hotel drop-off/pick-up. This is one of the reasons why ANPR systems are prohibited by the UK Government for monitoring council car parks, but unregulated private parking companies use ANPR because the system flaws generate income.

ParkinEye are demanding a payment of £100 which is incredibly extortionate and disappointing to see that a reputable hotel, such as yourself, is allowing such an atrocious scam to happen under their name. This is indeed driving away many minicab/taxi drivers from the site. This PCN is causing distress to myself and the driver who is being demanded to pay a lot more than what he had earned for that job. In hindsight, it would have been more beneficial for him to not pick up your passengers and do this job.

This a complete unfair demand by your agents, ParkingEye, and I would appreciate for you to tell your agents to cancel the PCN. The driver would like to resolve this situation and would offer £20 to settle the case, which I require the Hilton to make this offer to ParkingEye on my behalf, in the event that your agent continues to refuse to cancel the charge. Hilton should be aware that the face that this case has gone through POPLA does not prevent ParkingEye from cancelling PCNs for more robust and customer-orientated landowners who have insisted, including other hotels, as reported online several times. Surely, ParkingEye can reconsider, as a gesture of goodwill if nothing else, or this case will go to the press to warn other taxi drivers and delivery drivers to boycott this location.

I hope we can resolve this case without any further escalation. I look forward to hearing a reply from you.

Kind regards,

RK NAME

KeithP

fivestarsamz said:

I cant access the POPLA evidence pack because the case is closed.

Send a SAR to PoPLA asking for it.

Coupon-mad

Yes you need a timeline and what you want the Hilton to do about it at the end. And make it more concise.  Remove this:


"I must mention that dropping off or picking up is not parking as defined by the judge, His Honour Judge J Harris QC, in the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, and ParkingEye are fully aware of this. ANPR Camera do not record parking time, and only record the time of arrival and departure from the location site, and therefore it cannot determine the difference between a parking event and a hotel drop-off/pick-up. This is one of the reasons why ANPR systems are prohibited by the UK Government for monitoring council car parks, but unregulated private parking companies use ANPR because the system flaws generate income."

fivestarsamz

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you need a timeline and what you want the Hilton to do about it at the end. And make it more concise.  Remove this:


"I must mention that dropping off or picking up is not parking as defined by the judge, His Honour Judge J Harris QC, in the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, and ParkingEye are fully aware of this. ANPR Camera do not record parking time, and only record the time of arrival and departure from the location site, and therefore it cannot determine the difference between a parking event and a hotel drop-off/pick-up. This is one of the reasons why ANPR systems are prohibited by the UK Government for monitoring council car parks, but unregulated private parking companies use ANPR because the system flaws generate income."

OKay noted. I will try make it more concise and send it. Have removed that paragraph also. 

Requesting them for a reply in 7 days seems reasonable? or is it too short?

 KeithP said:

fivestarsamz said:

I cant access the POPLA evidence pack because the case is closed.

Send a SAR to PoPLA asking for it.

I will get on that now. 

Coupon-mad

Perfectly reasonable given the upcoming holidays.

fivestarsamz

Perfect thank you!! Thank you so much for your help so far!! I just love what you do!

Okay so, I am looking for the head office email and I only found two emails: 

The CEO christopher.nassetta@hilton.com

and customer service: guest.correspondence@hrcc-hilton.com

I am guessing i direct the email to the CEO but shall I also BCC customer service?

Coupon-mad

No just send it to the CEO.

Le_Kirk

fivestarsamz said:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you regarding a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that I received from your agents, ParkingEye.

The PCN number is XXXXXXXXX

The incident refers to the time where the driver of the vehicle, who is a minicab (private hire) driver was visiting the Hampton by Hilton Hotel in London Stansted Airport to pick up a passenger, who was also your customer, for one of his jobs. The driver did not park the vehicle within any of the dedicated parking space (attributed delineated by white lines) and was waiting in the car for the passenger to come from your hotel. The driver only stayed within the car park for 14 minutes (which is a normal amount of time for a minicab/taxi driver to wait for) and they were not aware of any payment required for this short length of a time, as the signs were not clear enough. I have attached a redacted job sheet to prove my case.  

I must mention that dropping off or picking up is not parking as defined by the judge, His Honour Judge J Harris QC, in the appeal case of Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities, and ParkingEye are fully aware of this. ANPR Camera do not record parking time, and only record the time of arrival and departure from the location site, and therefore it cannot determine the difference between a parking event and a hotel drop-off/pick-up. This is one of the reasons why ANPR systems are prohibited by the UK Government for monitoring council car parks, but unregulated private parking companies use ANPR because the system flaws generate income.

ParkinEye are demanding a payment of £100 which is incredibly extortionate and disappointing to see that a reputable hotel, such as yourself, is allowing such an atrocious scam to happen under their name. This is indeed driving away many minicab/taxi drivers from the site. This PCN is causing distress to myself and the driver who is being demanded required to pay a lot more than what he had earned for that job. In hindsight, it would have been more beneficial for him to not pick up your passengers customers and do this job.

This a complete completely unfair demand by your agents, ParkingEye, and I would appreciate for you to tell instructing your agents to cancel the PCN. The driver would like to resolve this situation and would offer £20 to settle the case, which I require the Hilton to make this offer to ParkingEye on my behalf, in the event that your agent continues to refuse to cancel the charge. Hilton should be aware that the face fact that this case has gone through POPLA does not prevent ParkingEye from cancelling PCNs for more robust and customer-orientated landowners who have insisted, including other hotels, as reported online several times. Surely, ParkingEye can reconsider, as a gesture of goodwill if nothing else, or this case will go to the press to warn other taxi drivers and delivery drivers to boycott this location.

I hope we can resolve this case without any further escalation. I look forward to hearing a reply from you.

Kind regards,

Some suggestions above.  Are you writing as the driver or the registered keeper, as you letter is confusing; it seems to start off as driver and then finishes as RK.  The letter starts quite rightly as "Dear Sir/Madam" and it should finish with "yours faithfully", NOT kind regards; are you really feeling kindly towards the hotel?