Wye Valley Visitor Centre ParkingEye POPLA Appeal

drbayleaf

Thanks yet again @Coupon-mad. 

I honestly have read that NEWBIE thread multiple times, but each time I go through it with more general understanding of what it's all about the more it fits into sense.

I was wonder how probable the "if" was in "If you get a LBCCC from ParkingEye", but I guess I'll find out.

On that:
"but also email their litigation team to try to resolve the dispute" << this seems surprising, and given "resolve" seems to mean "revert to appeal stage", I can't see this helping other than going back to POPLA. (A Kafka loop?)

Interesting that "complain to landowner" is again on the cards. He was not cooperative last time - I think you mentioned previously (not in NEWBIES) that the landowner is somehow liable - are they exposed if it goes to court? Is this something I can lean on him with?


Finally a suggestion: 
I feel a sentence such as "If you don’t or didn't reply to court documents, the county court will issue a default judgment also known as a CCJ." could be added to Post 2's section beginning "HAVE YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT A CCJ" to give more context for new readers.

drbayleaf

Progress report: while away camping I was sent the LBCCC (had so hoped they'd "forget"!) so have 14 days left

Newbies #2 sounds like I don't need SAR as I have all their comms saved ("if your missing evidence"), but does it help anyway to waste their time? I also exposed the driver (me) so in emailing their litigation team am I just asking them to be super nice to me this time?

I will email Messrs Heyes again asking him to overturn the PCN - but given his last frighting response what do I hold over him as the Landowner? Do they get exposed as it goes to court?

Coupon-mad

You don't need a SAR if you have all the letters, PCN etc. 

"but also email their litigation team to try to resolve the dispute" << this seems surprising, and given "resolve" seems to mean "revert to appeal stage", I can't see this helping other than going back to POPLA.

Has happened, in cases where POPLA has not been tried.  But you tried POPLA so that won't happen!

Just email the litigation team your dispute and attach your screenshot of the PayByPhone entry and proof that the car left with over 4 minutes parking time remaining. 

State that there is no loss (because the time parked was no more than 4 hours) and the consideration period was clearly far too short for the needs of users of the butterfly park.  There can be no 'legitimate interest' in punishing a driver for the minutes taken on arrival in moving traffic, firstly having to queue in a busy car park before finding a space, then secondly the time taken to park, unload belongings and kids, walk over to the machine, read the fairly complex payment options, terms and tariff list, download a fluctuating app and pay.  This was when the parking contract commenced.

A driver is fairly entitled to a transaction period and the authority in HMRC v NCP confirms that a private parking contract only starts when the equivalent of a 'green button' is pressed to pay for parking and conclude the contract offered. 

Tell them if this unfair PCN is not cancelled, you will use your situation as a case study in your response to the DLUHC's Draft Impact Assessment 'Call for Evidence' this coming month, and will encourage your MP to do the same.  You will also put up a scathing TripAdvisor review to add to all the others where ParkingEye is ruining the butterfly park's reputation, and you will escalate the landowner complaint by asking your MP to write to both the butterfly park and ParkingEye.

drbayleaf

Many thanks as ever @Coupon-mad, your replies always give me a glimmer of hope .  I'll email them today.

In your last paragraph "Tell them if this unfair PCN is not cancelled..." - is the "them" the litigation team or were you meaning the landowner? I'm not convinced the PE Litigation Team would be swayed by a threat of poor TripAdvisor reviews, but then again given the number of bad reviews already, I'm not sure the landowner cares either!

Coupon-mad

Them = PEye

They are VERY concerned not to upset clients and lose contracts, AND they are hugely concerned about MPs and the current 'live' DLUHC Call for Evidence (see the bespoke thread on that!) so all of that is for PEye.

drbayleaf

Just writing my email and re-read the Parking Eye Case Study on The Wye Valley Visitor Centre...
Right at the bottom is this gem:

In closing, Lindsay says…“The Parkingeye team always do their utmost. They are extremely easy to work with, and our TripAdvisor rating has actually improved as a result. We’re such big fans that we’ve recommended them to other members of our local tourism association too.” 

LOL

https://www.parkingeye.co.uk/car-park-management/case-studies/wye-valley-visitor-centre/

drbayleaf

Here's my email:

Dear Parking Eye Legal Team,

I have received a LBCCC regarding the PCN XXXXX/XXXXX following my family visit to the Wye Valley Visitor Centre (aka Butterfly Zoo) at Easter half term this year. I would like to ask you to consider cancelling this PCN before it proceeds to the county court.

The supposed contravention is for a stay of 16 minutes over a 4 hour parking window based on ANPR entry/exit photos alone. However there is no loss to you as I paid for the time parked and left the car park within the allotted time. The ANPR photos have give no indication of when I actually parked. The car park was completely full given it was the Easter Holidays meaning I had to circle before parking. No allowance was for the time taken to then find and read the parking details and pay for parking. When I reached the meter I found it was broken and was directed to the second meter which was also broken. I then went to the Zoo entrance to then speak to the staff who told me to use the app instead. I encountered a series of troubles with the app failing to authorize payment my bank payment (due to very poor mobile reception) detailed in my log from PayByPhone (attached).

When I was finally successful in getting the PayByPhone payment authorized I naturally understood this to be the parking time to which I must adhere, so I made certain we left the Wye Valley Visitor Centre within this allotted parking window, which we did. We exited the car park with over 4 minutes parking time remaining as made evident by the time-stamp on the ANPR exit photograph and app screenshot taken by my wife as we drove out (see attachment). The PCN assumes that we were parked the entire time since entering the car park which is not true and is not fair. HMRC v NCP confirms that a private parking contract only starts when the equivalent of a 'green button' is pressed to pay for parking and conclude the contract offered - this was at the time the parking app finally took payment - 11:40 and we left the car park at 13:35:47 as evident in the ANPR photo which is less than 4 hours later.

I note on your very website that you specifically promote the Wye Valley Visitor Centre as a "Case Study" in which your system has helped prevent people from parking there and then walking to Symonds Yat. "Beset by misuse and abuse that affected capacity from paying customers, Parkingeye helped this popular tourist attraction make the most of it's car park facilities." "non-customers were at the root of their problems". I can understand this, it is an otherwise handy car park for just such a walk. Your Cased Study clearly states the reason is to "eradicate abuse", not to harm paying customers: "non-customers were at the root of their problems. Lindsay and his brother Edward had always wanted to provide free parking for their customers". I was there with my two young boys meeting up with family friends and also my parents coming over from Gloucester. We were there to see the butterflies. Indeed, you'll find my original posted letter contained photos of my two boys enjoying this butterfly attraction (attached). We spent the whole time in the zoo and cafe - we were legitimate users of the Centre. So you can imagine that to receive a £100 penalty despite having been a paying customer and having paid for 4 hours parking, and having left within the time seems wholly inappropriate. Such a situation is unlikely to stand up to scrutiny in a County Court.

Since my experience I have read of many other people finding themselves in the same situation of receiving parking fines after an otherwise magical visit to the Butterfly Zoo or Maze. In your Case Study Lindsay is quoted as saying: "and our TripAdvisor rating has actually improved as a result [of ParkingEye]". This is now well out of date as their rating continues to suffer due to parking. For example 6 out of the first 10 reviews are negative mentioning parking fines. Here are just some of the review titles from TripAdvisor:

• "Great experience ruined by parking fine"
• "bring a magnifying glass to ensure to read small print on parking signs to avoid high fines."
• "PARKING TICKET NIGHTMARE RUINS VISIT."
• "Warning Parking charges ruined the visit"
• "Not worth the parking fine"
• "Lovely day, parking nightmare"
• "Horrendous parking fine for 10 minutes"
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g190769-d2292866-Reviews-Wye_Valley_Butterfly_Zoo-Ross_on_Wye_Herefordshire_England.html

The negative reviews often mention that the ticket machines are out of order - as I also found - but these reviews go back over a year suggesting perhaps a deliberate decision not to fix them. Is this as a means to frustrate people attempting to pay for parking so they are more likely to fall foul to the ANPR camera time stamps? I think a judge would want to know why. Furthermore the PayByPhone app is not provided with that ANPR entry timestamp which is the precise timestamp on which your system determines fines are issues. This is despite advanced internet communication technology which would clearly render this feasible. The result is that customers are uninformed about the contract they have supposedly already entered into by simply driving into the car park. I believe this argument would be very interesting to a judge.

If this PCN is not cancelled I write to my MP, the Rt Hon Lucy Frazer (Conservative MP for South East Cambridgeshire) who is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, together with the Rt Hon Jesse Norman (Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire) who is the Minister of State (Department for Transport) in relation to this unfair parking practice in his constituency, asking him to investigate the Visitor Centre in light of the evidence provided in the TripAdvisor reviews. This is a prime attraction in his constituency I will be escalating my landowners complaint by asking him to write directly to the Landowner. I will furthermore use my experience as a case study in my response to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities' call for evidence on "Private parking charges and debt recovery fees" and encouraging my MP to do the same.

Thank you for your attention in this matter,

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.  Some long paragraphs need separating, that's all.

I think someone very recently posted pics of the 2 machines being broken - was that you? If not, search the forum for Wye Valley parking machine as those pics could help your defence.

drbayleaf

Received a response from the PE legal team suggesting they won't ever re-consider PCNs in the light of POPLA defeat and LBCC being issued. Couldn't even be bothered to address me by name.

Dear Sir / Madam,

We write further to your recent correspondence concerning the above referenced Parking Charge. We recently sent you a Letter Before Claim which informed you that this Parking

Charge remains outstanding and had now been processed for further action.

We note from your reply to our Letter Before Claim that you dispute the outstanding sum.

After reviewing your correspondence, it is our position that the Parking Charge remains open. As a Letter Before Claim has now been issued, we are unable to consider any further correspondence.

We note that an appeal has previously been submitted which was rejected and you were provided with the details of the independent appeals service (POPLA) if you did not agree with our decision. As POPLA have made a decision in Parkingeye’s favour, we are unable to consider any further appeals points at this stage.

The balance of £120.00 remains outstanding and full payment is required within the next 14 days to prevent further action. We are prepared to take legal action if necessary and should court proceedings be issued, further costs will be incurred. These will include, but are not limited to, the court claim issue fee and the solicitors costs referred to within the Letter Before Claim.

Yours faithfully,
Enforcement Team

Can I really win this in court? How much effort will a witness statement be?

Coupon-mad

Did you search for and find the thread with the photos of the 2 broken machines?  Should take minutes to find on the forum with a canny keyword search.

Defence is no effort, look how easy it is:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80277790/#Comment_80277790

Pretty much exactly like yours.  All written.

I'd reply and say:


Dear Sirs,

You stated:

"As a Letter Before Claim has now been issued, we are unable to consider any further correspondence. "

You haven't been appraised of the pre-action protocol (PAP) then?  Are you new, or not legally trained?

Kindly pass my complaint to someone who understands the legal position, and treat this (and log it) as a formal complaint.

I reserve the right to report you to the AOS team (Gemma Dorans) at the BPA if you breach the PAP and/or fail to consider a complaint properly.

I will also show this correspondence to the Judge as evidence, should you issue proceedings, and I will claim my costs in full.

You have a legal duty to consider what I am telling you about the broken machines.

As well as logging this as a complaint, kindly note that I am exercising my right under the PAP to ask for documents and you now have 30 days to supply proof that your payment systems and machines were all working normally throughout that day.

yours faithfully

YOUR NAME