Parkingeye PCN help!

frankenstein1

Le_Kirk it may have failed due to my card or wrong pin entry. Exact reason is unknown. In any case 2 attempts were made by me and I did provide receipts of failed attempts. It makes no sense why a motorist cannot leave should they change their minds regardless of alternative payment methods. Why is a motorist bound by a contract after a certain time period rather than an explicit contract. When does a contract begin: on entry, car is stationary, when attempt to pay, on payment. There is so much ambiguity. 

Coupon-mad

No there isn't.  NCP v HMRC covered this.  Search the forum for

 NCP 0 HMRC 1

frankenstein1

Thanks Coupon-mad. If I’m reading it correctly the contract between PPC and customer begins at point of payment. That makes perfect sense. Perhaps I can quote this in my response to Parkingeye? I don’t understand why are Parkingeye (and POPLA) using entry grace period to make a penalty charge? 

The local MP has sent me email stating she’s written to Parkingeye to revert my charge to the original amount. I have replied to her that’s kind but there should be no charge at all. Also to discuss how to raise wider issue public faces with PPC in parliament. I have added text from NEWBIES around this as per advice. 

Coupon-mad

The local MP has sent me email stating she’s written to ParkingEye to revert my charge to the original amount. 

Why would the MP do that? What's the matter with her, she thinks these are real penalties and not a 'market failure' industry?

frankenstein1

Coupon-mad I don’t know. 

The main issue for me is these grace periods so any past cases in favour of motorists would be useful to formulate a strong argument. I will continue to search the web and this forum. POPLA seem to think grace period signage is not needed but I disagree. 

Parkingeye (and POPLA) simply quote BPA rules and past cases they’ve won. Is there an independent body that supervises BPA? Who decides their rules are fair? 

Coupon-mad

Nobody yet, which is why the Government has stepped in to regulate the rogue industry (and I've been personally working in the DLHUC Steering Group shaping the Regulatory Framework/Code project since 2020).

POPLA seem to think grace period signage is not needed but I disagree. 

I agree with POPLA.

frankenstein1

Coupon-mad I am curious why you agree with POPLA?

The consideration and grace period are minimum set by BPA and can vary between car parks depending on size of the car park. Surely a sign on these periods on the entrance would help inform motorists. I have based my argument with Parkingeye that in a worst case scenario the consideration period is insufficient. 

Coupon-mad

I don't disagree that 5 mins is insufficient as a consideration period in many cases - and I've told the DLUHC as much in the various Public Consultation submissions since 2021 - but it is a fact that the consideration and grace periods don't have to be on the signs.

So POPLA are not wrong.

The reason they are not on signs is that people would factor that in and more people would stay a bit longer (and risk PCNs by doing so).

Many people do know about the 'standard' 10 mins grace period because it's the same as on-street.  But they don't know about consideration periods.

IMHO it is a damn good thing they (BOTH) are not stated to be part of the contract, because that keeps them separate, not set in stone and therefore rebuttable in a court.

And rebuttable in an appeal to a PROPER appeals service that has to consider any mitigating circumstances and fairness.

I also think it is more important not to clutter up signs. The more concise and clear, large terms the better.

frankenstein1

Coupon-mad thanks that makes sense. But as it stands I understood signage to mean a contract of T&C to apply after payment not implicitly after some time on site. In a failed payment due to whatever reason that means PCN. Annoying. 

frankenstein1

Council has confirmed no planning consent but since in use for 10 years or more lawful through passage of time.  Apart from showing landowner negligence there’s nothing in it. 

Well it seems the only grounds is insufficient consideration period. I’ve broken down the 15 minutes on site and realised the scenario goes beyond normal definition of consideration period. That is no room for time for failed payment attempts and excess time reversing out of tricky corner spot on exit would normally have formed part of grace period under a parked event. I don’t think BPA have allowed for failed parking event grace period on a quick read of their code. 

I believe BPA specifies minimum values to allow for unpredictable scenarios like mine but Parkingeye and POPLA want to use minimums for all scenarios. That’s very wrong! Anyway letter goes on Monday so will see what they say and decide whether to pay. Thanks for all the feedback.