Appealing PCN, to POPLA after ParkingEye (Corporation Street, Preston)

UncleThomasCobley

dylatte said:

Thank you, I think I've found the post you meant, specifically 'rebut the operator's case, blow by blow'.

Also I've heard that if you're unsuccessful with a private PCN, this could affect your credit score. At what stage does that happen and does anyone have experience with this? I want to continue fighting this situation but not to the point of causing something else irreversible or detrimental.

Whoever told you that "I've heard that if you're unsuccessful with a private PCN, this could affect your credit score" is an complete eejit and you should make sure that you never take any advice from them in future.

Have you actually bothered to fully read the Newbies/FAQ thread? Everything is explained in there.

dylatte

I don't know if you have a problem or why you reply the way you do, but I don't appreciate the sarcy or belittling comments. I'm giving this my best considering it's difficult for me to read, I don't have the time and all I've done is be polite. Please be considerate of the fact that everything may not be as easy for others, (physically or mentally) and that your knowledge isn't obvious to others..

Here's an example of a barrister mentioning credit rating: 'How to challenge a private parking ticket' by Daniel Barrett on Youtube, 2:47-3:04 (cannot paste links yet)

I have read through to the best of my ability (although I'll have another read) and noted points which relate to my situation. I ask questions like those because the help is appreciated and it prevents guessing when I can't find something specific.

Coupon-mad

Don't worry. You are not risking a CCJ even if you:

- lose at POPLA and 
- ignore the daft £170 debt demands, then 
- defend the court claim.

Which is what the NEWBIES thread tells you to do.  We do not risk anyone's credit.

We know what we're doing. Be confident.

fisherjim

Well how misleading that video is, he even keeps calling them "fines" and as you say he quotes out of the blue "you even risk affecting your credit score" without qualifying that with the fact that's if you fail to pay the CCJ in the required time.

https://!!!!!!.com/534pnbrf

However he is not helping at all as we have found out on here many times legal beagles aren't always as clued up as they should be, and remember many ordinary members of the public beat these "experts" daily!

I don't think you have been belittled by anyone but please consider that the process you are now in with these scammers is meant to intimidate bully and mislead you then rob you, a far more demeaning experience than someone offering help believe me.

UncleThomasCobley

@dylatte, I most certainly was not "belittling" you. If that is what you felt, then I apologise as that was not my intention. However, I and many others spend hours on here every day trying to assist the many victims of these scammers on a voluntary basis. 

A tremendous amount of work has been put in to the Newbies/FAQ thread and it invariably answers at least 95% of the questions that are asked, every day. If 50% or more of our time is used up answering something that is already answered in the Newbies/FAQ thread, you should be able to appreciate that short or curt answers will sometimes be forthcoming.

Unfortunately, far too many posters only skim-read the thread and then expect us to do the legwork for them. It does not work like that and for someone to feel insulted or belittled because we have only directed them to the source for their answers, is not intentional.

dylatte

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @fisherjim, that's reassuring and I appreciate you taking a look at the video as well. 
@UncleThomasCobley Maybe belittling wasn't the right word but I did feel a condescending tone, however I can consider that to be a misunderstanding as written messages are not necessarily received the same as spoken messages. I appreciate your reply and can understand all of you must go through countless questions and situations over and over again as well.

In the meantime, I'm going to write a draft of my comments and share them soon.

dylatte

Afternoon, here's a draft of my motorist comments back to POPLA regarding ParkingEye's comments.

'In response to ParkingEye's document, I'd like to mention the following:

I do not consider a parking event to have taken place as although I'd entered and intended to use the car park, I couldn't due to the reasons explained in my appeal. This includes that I did not leave my vehicle unattended, obstruct/prevent anyone from using any space or leave the car park on foot. Therefore, this would not breach 13.1 of BPA Approved Operator Scheme, Code of Practice.

If ParkingEye would like to argue a parking event did take place (which I do not agree with), the consideration period mentioned states a minimum of 5 minutes must be allowed but I am not able to find what the exact duration would've been for this car park, including within the document submitted by ParkingEye. I am unable to see where I have exceeded a consideration period, given that there isn't one clearly stated and was not one stated before the event took place. 

'Version 8, 13.1 states that parking operators must provide motorists a ‘consideration period’ before entering into the parking contract to allow motorists to consider the terms of the parking contract and leave the car park should they not wish to be bound by the terms & conditions.' If ParkingEye state their grace period is 5 minutes, I'd like to argue this would not be physically possible or It'd at least be extremely difficult/unrealistic to enter the car park, leave a vehicle, locate/view the signage of unfamiliar surroundings, read the terms and conditions and leave again all under 5 minutes. In my case, it was not possible to do anything other than leave as soon as I knew it wasn't possible to park and pay at the time. It was also not possible to view the signage or terms and conditions from outside of the car park, especially when driving. The first sign by the entrance (image provided by ParkingEye) says 'see signage in car park for terms and conditions'. As also seen in the images of the signs provided by ParkingEye, the terms and conditions are difficult to read due to the height of the signs and size of the writing, even when walked up to.

If this exact situation had taken place within less than 5 minutes, I would like to believe this entire situation wouldn't have come about, however as mentioned above, a time frame of 5 minutes seems unattainable and I did try what I could at the time before leaving, hence the 9 minute total, before respectfully leaving and trying somewhere else. I do not consider it fair or reasonable for anyone to be penalised and charged over such a short period of time.

The consequence of the brief overstay seems to be a penalty clause. Broadly, I understand a penalty clause to be a contractual provision which levies an excessive monetary sum unrelated to the actual harm against the defaulting party. The financial consequences of a breach of contract must not be simply designed to deter of a breach of contract. It must be in some sense, remedial. £100 of financial damage was not caused by a potential overstay of 4 minutes, especially as no one was effected, my presence was not to anybody's detriment whatsoever. This is excessive and in this case, there can't be any way the owners or operators of this car park could have expected to suffer up to £100 worth of loss if I overstayed the consideration period.

To summarise, I feel this is a simple and unfortunate mishap. I was not able to pay or communicate this at the time for assistance, had no alternative of payment or option to inform anyone, so my only option was to leave, which again would not have been realistic to achieve in under 5 minutes. I believe £100 to be excessive and do not wish to make any payment.

~ Request document confirming the landowner, all is in date and contact details? ~

I feel like I'm repeating myself but also aware of making any contact to ParkingEye should be as lengthy as possible to put them off. Any thoughts or adaptations I should make?

UncleThomasCobley

Normally you will only win at POPLA if you can beat PE on a point of law/CoP that shows the PCN was not valid or issued correctly. Your rebuttal is well presented above. However, it is doubtful that the POPLA assessor will find anything to alter the facts. Hopefully I am wrong.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

The consequence of the brief overstay seems to be a penalty clause. Broadly, I understand a penalty clause to be a contractual provision which levies an excessive monetary sum unrelated to the actual harm against the defaulting party. The financial consequences of a breach of contract must not be simply designed to deter of a breach of contract. It must be in some sense, remedial. £100 of financial damage was not caused by a potential overstay of 4 minutes, especially as no one was effected, my presence was not to anybody's detriment whatsoever. This is excessive and in this case, there can't be any way the owners or operators of this car park could have expected to suffer up to £100 worth of loss if I overstayed the consideration period.

To summarise, I feel this is a simple and unfortunate mishap.

dylatte

Thank you, unfortunately I think everything was valid and issued 'correctly', and there's no other reasons I've come across to use in my argument.
Would it be of any help to mention ANPR reliability, the landowner, their contract or contact them (landowner) directly to discuss this?