Advice on non-retail carpark please?

GrumpyDil

Isn't there the additional fact that those are forbidding parking signs? (sorry may be missing something but just wondering) 

Coupon-mad

Yes I'd say the PE signs don't offer anything to those persons not fitting into those definitions. But that would be a point for a court defence, not for appeal, as POPLA only get the simple stuff (and they struggle with that!).

Not_A_Hope

As the OP missed the ParkingEye appeal deadline my understanding is they won’t be issued with a POPLA appeal code.

However if ParkingEye take this to a court hearing they can still successfully defend it.

I think all they can do now is wait and prepare for the inevitable claim form 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

And yet you got a ParkingEye PCN there?

Complain to PEYE then report them to the BPA.

As above. That's the way forward.

dellaclearing

Not_A_Hope said:

As the OP missed the ParkingEye appeal deadline my understanding is they won’t be issued with a POPLA appeal code.

However if ParkingEye take this to a court hearing they can still successfully defend it.

I think all they can do now is wait and prepare for the inevitable claim form 

Thanks @Not_A_Hope this was the reason I believed I no longer had a leg to stand on, without a POPLA appeal code I wasn't sure there was anywhere left I could appeal before ending up in court (which I'd really rather not do!), but it seems I have one last play:

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

And yet you got a ParkingEye PCN there?

Complain to PEYE then report them to the BPA.

As above. That's the way forward.

Thank you again @Coupon-mad I'll send the below email to ParkingEye and hope for the best.

Out of interest though, why do you think would ParkingEye take on the contract to manage a car park on non-relevant land? Chasing the keeper seems to be their main objective, so why take on a site where this model doesn't apply? I'm just worried that they know something we don't.

Regardless, I've composed the below using a combination of my earlier emails and the wise words offered by the experts on this forum, but please, please, please someone stop me if I'm about to put my foot in it...

dellaclearing

Dear ParkingEye Customer Service,

I'm writing as the keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX to complain in reference to a Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye for parking on Associated British Ports, Plymouth Car Park.

Date of event: 24th October 2023

PCN Reference number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The document received shows dark camera stills of vehicle XXXXXXX arriving at the Associated British Ports, Plymouth Car Park and then leaving 5 minutes later. For this, the sum of £100 has been requested from the registered keeper.

Upon careful examination of the circumstances, there appear to be several factors that invalidate your notice...

_______________

Firstly, you've sent a Notice to Keeper pertaining to an event at a Port/Harbour site, accompanied by wording consistent with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA), this site does not qualify as relevant land so you are are incorrect and misleading regarding keeper liability, and as I will not be naming the driver, this PCN should be dismissed immediately.

---

Additionally, there are also signs from a different car park operator, Total Parking Solutions (TPS), to be found displayed at this location, (please see attached photographs). It is unclear who is offering the contract, ParkingEye or TPS? Regardless, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 with regards to contract fairness applies... If a contract can be interpreted in more than one way, then the one that favours the motorist is the one that prevails.

---

The British Parking Association's Code of Practise, Clause 13.1 states:

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 on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.

Despite the fact that, even according to the BPA's own terms, no offence has ocurred, it is utterly ridiculous to see a PCN issued after just 5 minutes which is surely not long enough to enter, park, find and consider the terms and conditions (especially when there is conflicting signage displayed), choose not to accept those terms and then leave. Even more so if this were to happen at a time where traffic is extra busy due to the large number of vehicles disembarking the ferry.

_______________

I kindly request, as a gesture of goodwill, that ParkingEye cancel this PCN entirely before the details are escalated to the British Parking Association.

I appreciate your attention to this issue and look forward to a timely resolution.

Sincerely,

fisherjim

Out of interest though, why do you think would ParkingEye take on the contract to manage a car park on non-relevant land? Chasing the keeper seems to be their main objective, so why take on a site where this model doesn't apply? I'm just worried that they know something we don't.

No it's because the majority of the public don't know much about parking, and more importantly how private parking companies bend everything to suite their greedy scams.

Fruitcake

dellaclearing said:

Dear ParkingEye Customer Service,

I'm writing as the keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX to complain in reference to a Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye for parking on Associated British Ports, Plymouth Car Park.

Date of event: 24th October 2023

PCN Reference number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The document received shows dark camera stills of vehicle XXXXXXX arriving at the Associated British Ports, Plymouth Car Park and then leaving 5 minutes later. For this, the sum of £100 has been requested from the registered keeper.

Upon careful examination of the circumstances, there appear to be several factors that invalidate your notice...

_______________

Firstly, you've sent a Notice to Keeper pertaining to an event at a Port/Harbour site, accompanied by wording consistent with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA), this site does not qualify as relevant land since Port Authority byelaws apply so you are are incorrect and misleading regarding keeper liability, and as I will not be naming the driver, this PCN should be dismissed immediately.

---

Additionally, there are also signs from a different car park operator, Total Parking Solutions (TPS), to be found displayed at this location, (please see attached photographs). It is unclear who is offering the contract, ParkingEye or TPS. ? Regardless, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 with regards to contract fairness applies... If a contract can be interpreted in more than one way, then the one that favours the motorist is the one that prevails. A motorist cannot form a contract with two parking companies at once, therefore no contract was formed with ParkingEye.

---

The British Parking Association's Code of Practise, Clause 13.1 states:

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 on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.

Despite the fact that, even according to the BPA's own terms, no offence breach of parking contract has occurred, it is utterly ridiculous to see a PCN issued after just 5 minutes which is surely not long enough to enter, park, find and consider the terms and conditions (especially when there is conflicting signage displayed), choose not to accept those terms and then leave. Even more so if this were to happen at a time where traffic is extra busy due to the large number of vehicles disembarking the ferry.

_______________

I kindly request, as a gesture of goodwill, that ParkingEye cancel this PCN entirely before the details are escalated to the British Parking Association. ParkingEye should therefore do the right thing and cancel this parking charge notice immediately, and confirm forthwith that it has done so.

Please note that I shall be complaining to the British Parking Association that ParkingEye are issuing notices to keeper that include false claims that the PoFA applies to non relevant land. You should know that ParkingEye are not the only company currently being investigated by the BPA.

I appreciate your attention to this issue and look forward to a timely resolution.

Sincerely,

A few suggestions for you.

Do complain to the BPA. I believe it is Gemma Dorrins (not sure of the spelling) who is currently investigation NSL for claiming the PoFA applies at Stanstead Airport, so do a forum search to confirm that, then quote the BPA complaint number in your complaint.

Do complain to your MP as well.

Le_Kirk

It's Gemma Dorrans

dellaclearing

Fruitcake said:

dellaclearing said:

Dear ParkingEye Customer Service,

I'm writing as the keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX to complain in reference to a Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkingEye for parking on Associated British Ports, Plymouth Car Park.

Date of event: 24th October 2023

PCN Reference number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The document received shows dark camera stills of vehicle XXXXXXX arriving at the Associated British Ports, Plymouth Car Park and then leaving 5 minutes later. For this, the sum of £100 has been requested from the registered keeper.

Upon careful examination of the circumstances, there appear to be several factors that invalidate your notice...

_______________

Firstly, you've sent a Notice to Keeper pertaining to an event at a Port/Harbour site, accompanied by wording consistent with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA), this site does not qualify as relevant land since Port Authority byelaws apply so you are are incorrect and misleading regarding keeper liability, and as I will not be naming the driver, this PCN should be dismissed immediately.

---

Additionally, there are also signs from a different car park operator, Total Parking Solutions (TPS), to be found displayed at this location, (please see attached photographs). It is unclear who is offering the contract, ParkingEye or TPS. ? Regardless, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 with regards to contract fairness applies... If a contract can be interpreted in more than one way, then the one that favours the motorist is the one that prevails. A motorist cannot form a contract with two parking companies at once, therefore no contract was formed with ParkingEye.

---

The British Parking Association's Code of Practise, Clause 13.1 states:

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 on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.

Despite the fact that, even according to the BPA's own terms, no offence breach of parking contract has occurred, it is utterly ridiculous to see a PCN issued after just 5 minutes which is surely not long enough to enter, park, find and consider the terms and conditions (especially when there is conflicting signage displayed), choose not to accept those terms and then leave. Even more so if this were to happen at a time where traffic is extra busy due to the large number of vehicles disembarking the ferry.

_______________

I kindly request, as a gesture of goodwill, that ParkingEye cancel this PCN entirely before the details are escalated to the British Parking Association. ParkingEye should therefore do the right thing and cancel this parking charge notice immediately, and confirm forthwith that it has done so.

Please note that I shall be complaining to the British Parking Association that ParkingEye are issuing notices to keeper that include false claims that the PoFA applies to non relevant land. You should know that ParkingEye are not the only company currently being investigated by the BPA.

I appreciate your attention to this issue and look forward to a timely resolution.

Sincerely,

A few suggestions for you.

Do complain to the BPA. I believe it is Gemma Dorrins (not sure of the spelling) who is currently investigation NSL for claiming the PoFA applies at Stanstead Airport, so do a forum search to confirm that, then quote the BPA complaint number in your complaint.

Do complain to your MP as well.

Wow @Fruitcake thank you so much for your advised amendments! I like your version better!
I'll make the changes and get this emailed off to ParkingEye this afternoon.

I looked into making a complaint with the BPA so that I could include the complaint ref in my email to ParkingEye, the BPA have a form to be filled in but it states:
Please be advised that the BPA will only investigate escalated complaints. If you believe there has been a breach of our Code of Practice you must complain directly to our member first. You will be required to upload a copy of your complaint outcome when submitting your complaint using the form below.

... So, I'll need to see how ParkingEye respond to my email first before scalating to the BPA.
I also quite like the idea of leaving this site as is though, gives everyone who gets caught by their trap an easy way out so long as they check this website before sending payment to PE.