Help re. alternative payment method available - Parkingeye

makeanddokate88

I entered a car park, parked, went to payment machine, entered reg, but the card reader was not working. I tried the other machine in CP, same issue, and could see previous user had also not been able to complete transaction (reg no was still on screen). I went back to car, tried to find coins, no joy. Then started calling the pay by phone no. was on about 4% battery and not with a provider I've previously registered with,  envisioned running out of battery mid-call and still outstaying any grace period, so abandoned that plan, left car park and parked elsewhere. 

a couple of weeks later received a £100 PCN from Parkingeye for the 9 minutes I was in the car park. 

Feeling utterly outraged and completely in the right, I immediately appealed on parkingeye website (now realise I should have checked here first). I've now received a notice from parkingeye saying appeal failed as there were other method of payments available. 

Do I have a leg to stand on? My argument would be, those other methods of payment weren't available to me, and had I been aware that paying by card wasn't an option, I wouldn't have entered the car park. 

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it's better to do that before appealing to PoPLA.

If a landowner cancellation is not forthcoming then appeal to PoPLA using all the points available to you from the third post of the NEWBIES sticky Announcement.

This will include,

Not the landowner
No standing to issue charges in their own name
Frustration of contract (duff pay machines, no cash, no mobile 'phone signal/battery life, 'phone app took too long to load etcetera).
Lack of grace period sufficient to accommodate pay machine/phone app failures
Unfair contract terms (Forced/unable to pay within unrealistic time constraints) - CRA 2015 applies
ANPR only records time on site, not time parked. Parking time does not begin until the payment has been made, Thornton v Shoe Lane applies
Attending to a vicissitude of some short duration is not parking, (trying to find a working payment method would constitute a vicissitude of some short duration) - Jopson v Homeguard applies.

Post your draft PoPLA appeal here before submitting it.

makeanddokate88

Thanks Fruitcake. 

I have tried to find out who the landowner is and have been unsuccessful. The car park in question doesn't appear as a carpark on google maps, which seems unusual. I've trawled google, local planning meeting minutes etc but no mention of this car park. Also, google map images don't show the ANPR signage. Utterly frustrating as was on holiday so it's a 4hr+ round journey if I want to check the details. 

Is there a way of findng out who owns bits of land, especially ones where they are filming you and collecting money?!

KeithP

makeanddokate88 said:

Is there a way of finding out who owns bits of land...

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place?

 From time to time @Umkomaas posts this...

makeanddokate88

I've contacted who I think is the landowner. While I await response, have started POPLA appeal..

POPLA reference:        xxxx

Parkingeye reference:   xxxx

Dear Sir,

I wish to appeal the above parking charge.

I, the vehicle keeper visited Croyde for a weekend of camping with family and friends  from xxxxxxx On the Sunday, we decided to spend our remaining time at the beach. The driver entered the Croyde Beach car park and went to the parking machine to pay. After entering registration details, it was not possible to pay by card, the machine was not recognising either of their payment cards. The driver tried the only other machine in the car park, again same issue. Another family also had the same problem. 

Establishing the machine was faulty, the driver returned to vehicle, looked everywhere for loose change, but  only found approx 25p well short of the amount required.  At this point, they looked for details of pay by phone on the signage. The driver started this process and then realised their phone was on less than 10% (they had been camping and had no electric on pitch).  

Concerned the phone would run out of battery part way registration etc, and they’d still have no means of paying AND exceed any consideration period, they left the car park. They found another parking space nearby, parked up, enjoyed the beach, before leaving 2 hours later to return home. 

Please see evidence of alternative parking at Freshwell Camping, and departure date from Croyde some 2 hours after leaving the Croyde Bay Pay & Display,  in Google timeline data below (removed for forum only).

I appeal the parking charge as the registered keeper, on the following grounds:

1.   Failure to adhere to the site Consideration and Grace Periods.

2.   No contract formed due to the failure of the payment mechanism on site.

3.   Poor signage.

4.   ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

5.  No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requirements.

6.   Vehicle Images contained in Parking Charge Notice: British Parking Association Code of Practice – non-compliance.

7.   The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate.

 

1.       Failure to adhere to the Consideration and Grace Periods.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice clearly highlights within section 13 that a company’s approach to parking management must ensure that 

“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, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant (sic) on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.”

These time periods are a minimum, not a maximum. I ask that ParkingEye be asked to state what consideration periods were applied in this case.

Please see below image of car park. The yellow arrow is the footpath to the beach and local shops (the main reason for people parking here, there are other car parks in Croyde for the village etc). The blue dot represents roughly the centre of the car park, the pink dots the payment machines, and the red dot the assumed location of the ANPR camera. 

It would take approx 30 seconds to drive to the centre of the car park. The location of the payment machines is approx a 1 min walk. I ask ParkingEye to provide evidence that it is it is possible to enter this car park, consider the terms and conditions, visit payment machine, and leave again within 5 minutes. 

Please see below statements from Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at British Parking Association:
There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The British Parking Association’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

To briefly summarise his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and park.

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum consideration periods set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark was only 9 minutes. 

An approximate breakdown of this time can be found below. 

• 30 seconds drive from entrance 

• 15 seconds leaving the car, unbuckling, finding payment method etc

• 1 minute walk to payment machine

• 30 seconds to read prices/instructions

• 2 minutes attempting to pay at both available machines (the second machine had a family at it, I a waited for them to leave so I could use that one but realise after they had also not been able to pay either). 

• 1 minute to return to car

• 2 minutes to hunt though bags, pockets, compartments looking for loose change

• 1 minute to read small text on sign and attempt pay by phone. 

• 15 seconds to enter vehicle, buckle up, make safety checks etc

• 30 seconds drive to leave car park. 

This additional 4 minutes over the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes, is well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. The timings above demonstrate that that outside of entering/leaving, the remaining 8 minutes in this carpark were spent attempting in good faith to enter into a future contract with Parkingeye, and on no other activities. 

Please note the judge's findings in the Jopson vs Homeguard case (transcript available online) where he said around paragraph 19 or 20 that 

stopping to attend a small vicissitude is not parking. 

Looking for alternative payment methods because of faulty equipment  is most definitely a small vicissitude. Jopson vs Homeguard was heard in the appeal court.

In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the British Parking Association.

Again, it is undeniably clear from the evidence that ParkingEye Ltd. have failed to uphold and consider the necessary consideration periods set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above.

2.       No contract formed due to the failure of the payment mechanism on site.

The driver attempted to pay by card. For reasons unknown, the card payment machine failed to work despite multiple attempts and the driver was unable to pay and enter into a parking contract. Had they known the card payment facility was not available, they would not have entered this car park. The driver rarely carries much cash, and phone battery was insufficient to take risk on downloading an app, or making a phone call (that from previous experience can take upwards of 5 minutes if having to  register and enter card number talking to an automated program). Since the failure caused frustration of any contract that may have been, there ultimately was no contract. As their only means of payment had been taken away from the driver by the failure of Parkingeye to maintain their machine (contravening BPA guidance), the driver had no choice to leave the car park and go elsewhere.  

In NCP v HMRC 

LJ Newey adopted an objective approach to determine that the contract came into existence when the ‘green button was pressed’. The pressing of the green button representing acceptance by the customer of an offer by NCP to provide a specified time of parking in return for the coins that had been inserted into the machine.

As no payment was made, no contract was entered into. 

3.       Poor signage - BPA non compliance

The signs are placed above head height making it extremely difficult to read them. Please see below images  demonstrating height of signs and small text. It is not possible to read these signs from inside the vehicle, and difficult for driver (at height <5ft3) to read them outside of the vehicle.

As far as the driver could ascertain there was no mention of a time limit during which payment must be completed. Were such information clearly available, they would have ensured that they vacated the site after the initial failure of the machine instead of taking the time to try several times and attempt other methods. This limit would seem to be central to Parkingeye’s case and their failure to display the information means the driver had no way to know the charge would be applied even if payment is not possible. Such a position would seem to be entirely unreasonable in any case.

 

4.       ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

It is suggested that Parkingeye Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acts as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Parkingeye be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the claimed parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed “witness statement” slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the British Parking Association   Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

 

5.       No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) requirements.

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”;

Parkingeyes’ Notice to Keeper states “Time in Car Park 0 hours 9 minutes Arrival Time xxx Departure Time 1xxx”. At no stage do Parkingeye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

The Notice to Keeper states an arrival and departure time and period in car park. It is not in the gift of ParkingEye to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the PoFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time and at the location stated in the Notice to Keeper.

6.       Vehicle Images contained in Parking Charge Notice: British Parking Association Code of Practice – non-compliance.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice point 21.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

Neither photo supplied in PCN shows the vehicle parked in an unauthorised way.

7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Parkingeye Notice to Keeper shows no parking time, merely images of the vehicle and a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:

““Time in Car Park 0 hours 9 minutes Arrival Time xxxx Departure Time xxxx”.

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Parkingeyes’ own admission on their Notice to Keeper, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 22.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Parkingeye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘consideration periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on images of the vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (9 minutes apart), it is vital that Parkingeye produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

The parking charge notice claims that the vehicle was in the car park for 9 minutes. The times quoted are merely an indication of the time of entry and exit and are no proof that a parking event occurred. I put the operator to strict proof that a parking event did occur.

I believe the points I have raised show that the charge should be cancelled and I respectfully ask that you uphold my appeal.

___

Any thoughts much appreciated.

makeanddokate88

Wondering if it's worth adding that having established the driver had no means of paying (machine faulty, no coins and insufficient battery), they understood they had to leave the car park. In doing so, (in 9 minutes) they have received a PCN for £100. Had the driver decided to remain in the car park, and park the vehicle for several hours, despite having no method of payment, they would have still received a PCN for £100. Where is the incentive to follow the rules when the penalty is the same? In leaving the car park 

Any advice on above appeal would be much appreciated.

I have some issues with attention/concentration and writing this appeal is extremely difficult and stressful for me. Has anyone successfully counter-claimed?!

Coupon-mad

You can't counterclaim.

Remove paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 as they can't win.  Add instead,  a point saying:

5.  The signage does not state what the ANPR images will be used for.  The BPA Under section 21 of the BPA CoP, AOS members are only allowed to use ANPR if they:

(a) Use it to enforce parking in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner.

(b) Have clear signs which tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used for. 21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) General principles:
21.1 ''You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.''

DeeBee88

makeanddokate88 said:

I've contacted who I think is the landowner. While I await response, have started POPLA appeal..

POPLA reference:        xxxx

Parkingeye reference:   xxxx

Dear Sir,

I wish to appeal the above parking charge.

I, the vehicle keeper visited Croyde for a weekend of camping with family and friends  from xxxxxxx On the Sunday, we decided to spend our remaining time at the beach. The driver entered the Croyde Beach car park and went to the parking machine to pay. After entering registration details, it was not possible to pay by card, the machine was not recognising either of their payment cards. The driver tried the only other machine in the car park, again same issue. Another family also had the same problem. 

Establishing the machine was faulty, the driver returned to vehicle, looked everywhere for loose change, but  only found approx 25p well short of the amount required.  At this point, they looked for details of pay by phone on the signage. The driver started this process and then realised their phone was on less than 10% (they had been camping and had no electric on pitch).  

Concerned the phone would run out of battery part way registration etc, and they’d still have no means of paying AND exceed any consideration period, they left the car park. They found another parking space nearby, parked up, enjoyed the beach, before leaving 2 hours later to return home. 

Please see evidence of alternative parking at Freshwell Camping, and departure date from Croyde some 2 hours after leaving the Croyde Bay Pay & Display,  in Google timeline data below (removed for forum only).

I appeal the parking charge as the registered keeper, on the following grounds:

1.   Failure to adhere to the site Consideration and Grace Periods.

2.   No contract formed due to the failure of the payment mechanism on site.

3.   Poor signage.

4.   ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

5.  No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requirements.

6.   Vehicle Images contained in Parking Charge Notice: British Parking Association Code of Practice – non-compliance.

7.   The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate.

 

1.       Failure to adhere to the Consideration and Grace Periods.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice clearly highlights within section 13 that a company’s approach to parking management must ensure that 

“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, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant (sic) on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.”

These time periods are a minimum, not a maximum. I ask that ParkingEye be asked to state what consideration periods were applied in this case.

Please see below image of car park. The yellow arrow is the footpath to the beach and local shops (the main reason for people parking here, there are other car parks in Croyde for the village etc). The blue dot represents roughly the centre of the car park, the pink dots the payment machines, and the red dot the assumed location of the ANPR camera. 

It would take approx 30 seconds to drive to the centre of the car park. The location of the payment machines is approx a 1 min walk. I ask ParkingEye to provide evidence that it is it is possible to enter this car park, consider the terms and conditions, visit payment machine, and leave again within 5 minutes. 

Please see below statements from Kelvin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at British Parking Association:
There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

“An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The British Parking Association’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

“No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

To briefly summarise his definition, an observational period must include sufficient time for a motorist to park, observe the signs, make a decision as to whether they wish to comply with the conditions and park.

It is very clear from the evidence that ParkingEye have failed to uphold the minimum consideration periods set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark was only 9 minutes. 

An approximate breakdown of this time can be found below. 

• 30 seconds drive from entrance 

• 15 seconds leaving the car, unbuckling, finding payment method etc

• 1 minute walk to payment machine

• 30 seconds to read prices/instructions

• 2 minutes attempting to pay at both available machines (the second machine had a family at it, I a waited for them to leave so I could use that one but realise after they had also not been able to pay either). 

• 1 minute to return to car

• 2 minutes to hunt though bags, pockets, compartments looking for loose change

• 1 minute to read small text on sign and attempt pay by phone. 

• 15 seconds to enter vehicle, buckle up, make safety checks etc

• 30 seconds drive to leave car park. 

This additional 4 minutes over the minimum consideration period of 5 minutes, is well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. The timings above demonstrate that that outside of entering/leaving, the remaining 8 minutes in this carpark were spent attempting in good faith to enter into a future contract with Parkingeye, and on no other activities. 

Please note the judge's findings in the Jopson vs Homeguard case (transcript available online) where he said around paragraph 19 or 20 that 

stopping to attend a small vicissitude is not parking. 

Looking for alternative payment methods because of faulty equipment  is most definitely a small vicissitude. Jopson vs Homeguard was heard in the appeal court.

In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more false 'overstay' allegations past POPLA, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the British Parking Association.

Again, it is undeniably clear from the evidence that ParkingEye Ltd. have failed to uphold and consider the necessary consideration periods set out in the British Parking Association Code of Practice, as the total time within the car park does not allow for the driver to make the necessary observations, as highlighted by Kelvin Reynolds above.

2.       No contract formed due to the failure of the payment mechanism on site.

The driver attempted to pay by card. For reasons unknown, the card payment machine failed to work despite multiple attempts and the driver was unable to pay and enter into a parking contract. Had they known the card payment facility was not available, they would not have entered this car park. The driver rarely carries much cash, and phone battery was insufficient to take risk on downloading an app, or making a phone call (that from previous experience can take upwards of 5 minutes if having to  register and enter card number talking to an automated program). Since the failure caused frustration of any contract that may have been, there ultimately was no contract. As their only means of payment had been taken away from the driver by the failure of Parkingeye to maintain their machine (contravening BPA guidance), the driver had no choice to leave the car park and go elsewhere.  

In NCP v HMRC 

LJ Newey adopted an objective approach to determine that the contract came into existence when the ‘green button was pressed’. The pressing of the green button representing acceptance by the customer of an offer by NCP to provide a specified time of parking in return for the coins that had been inserted into the machine.

As no payment was made, no contract was entered into. 

3.       Poor signage - BPA non compliance

The signs are placed above head height making it extremely difficult to read them. Please see below images  demonstrating height of signs and small text. It is not possible to read these signs from inside the vehicle, and difficult for driver (at height <5ft3) to read them outside of the vehicle.

As far as the driver could ascertain there was no mention of a time limit during which payment must be completed. Were such information clearly available, they would have ensured that they vacated the site after the initial failure of the machine instead of taking the time to try several times and attempt other methods. This limit would seem to be central to Parkingeye’s case and their failure to display the information means the driver had no way to know the charge would be applied even if payment is not possible. Such a position would seem to be entirely unreasonable in any case.

 

4.       ParkingEye Ltd. lacks proprietary interest in the land and does not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespassing.

It is suggested that Parkingeye Ltd. does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acts as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that Parkingeye be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the claimed parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed “witness statement” slip of paper saying it exists.

Paragraph 7 of the British Parking Association   Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
a. the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
b. any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
c. any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
d. who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
e. the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

 

5.       No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Keeper does not meet Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) requirements.

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the Notice to Keeper to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”;

Parkingeyes’ Notice to Keeper states “Time in Car Park 0 hours 9 minutes Arrival Time xxx Departure Time 1xxx”. At no stage do Parkingeye explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

The Notice to Keeper states an arrival and departure time and period in car park. It is not in the gift of ParkingEye to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the PoFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkingEye are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require ParkingEye to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time and at the location stated in the Notice to Keeper.

6.       Vehicle Images contained in Parking Charge Notice: British Parking Association Code of Practice – non-compliance.

The British Parking Association Code of Practice point 21.5a stipulates that:

"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

Neither photo supplied in PCN shows the vehicle parked in an unauthorised way.

7. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The Parkingeye Notice to Keeper shows no parking time, merely images of the vehicle and a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

The Notice to Keeper states:

““Time in Car Park 0 hours 9 minutes Arrival Time xxxx Departure Time xxxx”.

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By Parkingeyes’ own admission on their Notice to Keeper, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed.

Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

“Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 22.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require Parkingeye to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘consideration periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on images of the vehicle allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times (9 minutes apart), it is vital that Parkingeye produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

The parking charge notice claims that the vehicle was in the car park for 9 minutes. The times quoted are merely an indication of the time of entry and exit and are no proof that a parking event occurred. I put the operator to strict proof that a parking event did occur.

I believe the points I have raised show that the charge should be cancelled and I respectfully ask that you uphold my appeal.

___

Any thoughts much appreciated.

Hi - Did you manage to get hold of the landowner at all. I also have a ticket here but struggling to track them down - thanks

makeanddokate88

Just posting the result of POPLA decision in the correct thread, but appeal was granted on point 4 - evidence of landowner authority. Hopefully useful for others fighting these crooks. 

Coupon-mad

Great news!

Hope @DeeBee88 sees it.