Parking charge Plymouth Port

Plymouth_help

Hi,

I recently got a parking charge at Plymouth port carpark from ParkingEye.

I have not yet sent off the initial appeal to them. I did sent off an email to the port authority who replied saying it should be dealt through ParkingEye.

After revisiting the carpark I have taken pictures from the space I was parked. The car park has no mention of PEye or of any number plate recognition. It has a couple signs up mentioning total parking solutions which quotes a different charge to the one I received.

I was advised to complain to PEye and report them to the BPA.

My question is should I send off the initial appeal to PEye as generic and then complain/report separately while waiting to bring it all up on the POPLA appeal Or should I complain in my initial appeal?

Coupon-mad

Easy to appeal and you could also complain to the BPA about the double signage (or don't do the BPA complaint if you want the signs to stay that way!).

Anyway no keeper liability (not relevant land) is enough in itself which you can add to the template appeal from the NEWBIES thread.

Show us the back of the PCN.

Fruitcake

I suspect this is not relevant land which is covered by Port Authority byelaws, meaning that the keeper can never be held liable. It is therefore very important to ensure the driver's identity is never revealed.
This point should be added as a one liner to the template in blue text found in the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES.

Is this a place where you drive through one car park area to get to another, or are there two car parks adjacent to each other? I can't see how else you would get a PCN from ParkingEye when the signs are for TPS. 
Is the precise location of the car park given on the PCN? If there is more than one car park at Millbay Docks, then this will be another point to bring up at PoPLA if it is not cancelled beforehand.

Do complain to your MP about this as well.

Fruitcake

Let's play spot the difference.

This is a GSV image of the car park taken in February of this year.



This is the night-time image provide by the OP.





Did you spot them? New barriers, a new pole with what looks like infra red lights and a scamera, and most importantly of all, an extra sign has appeared since February just to the right of the two traffic cones in the OP's image. I wonder if that is a PE sign, yet the TPS signs still appear to be present.
Perhaps PE have taken over just one small part of the car park, or perhaps they've taken over all of the car park but won't pay to have the TPS signs removed, and perhaps TPS don't want to spend money removing signs for a car park where they no longer operate.

Whatever the reason, 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 OP obviously believed the TPS contract Ts and Cs applied, and not a contract with PE whose signs (if there were any) were incapable of forming a contract with the motorist.

fisherjim

Covered specifically by Byelaws:

https://www.abports.co.uk/media/exkbduns/plymouth-great-western-docks-bye-laws.pdf

Plymouth_help

Replying to the questions. I've attached the back of the PCN. 

I don't think you can drive through the car park but the ferry port lanes are at the far end of it. There is another car park on the other side of the road a little way down.

I don't see any precise location on the PCN just associated British ports, Plymouth.

After you showing the image and pointing out the other sign, I went back again tonight and took a picture. So admittedly I was wrong and there is a sign for PEye but after seeing the first one I had wrongly assumed it was the same. I've attached the new image.

So I will send off the first stage General appeal with sentence added about the port bylaws. Is that all that is recommended at this point.

Thanks in advance

dellaclearing

Hi @Plymouth_help

I wanted to message back to thank you for the photos you attached to my thread relating to the same car park...
I went to take some photos myself and indeed found signs posted relating to ParkingEye...

I uploaded the new photos to my thread so as not to confuse this one, but it may be worth you taking a look just in case it may hurt your defense (or maybe help it? I really don't know!)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6486430/advice-on-non-retail-carpark-please/p4

Just trying to return the favour 

Best of luck to you, I believe my case may be dead in the dockside water though due to not replying in time to submit a proper appeal to ParkingEye!

Coupon-mad

So I will send off the first stage General appeal with sentence added about the port bylaws. Is that all that is recommended at this point?

Yes - a keeper appeal - but I'd say instead:

Appeal:

ParkingEye what are you playing at? Not only have you sent me a 'POFA worded' NTK regarding a Port/Harbour site which isn't relevant land, so you are misleading me about keeper liability, but you've also left a shedload of TPS signs up at this location. See photos.  Who is offering the so-called parking contract, you or them?  Do you want this reported to Gemma Dorans at the BPA or are you going to 'cancel as a gesture of goodwill' (not that parking firms know the meaning of that phrase).

fisherjim

The Parking Eye sign fixer won't be allowed to touch another PPC's signs, so they were left there on changeover day and he will just have taken pictures of his shiny new signs, packed up his drills and left.

TPS won't be in any hurry to remove them either as that will cost money and they will be throwing their toys on the floor after loosing the contract all good fun though

Umkomaas

PCN issued after just 7 minutes. Almost impossible to pass the ANPR stack, park up, read the signs, decide to not accept terms, return to car, start car, and drive away past ANPR stack and leave the car park within the minimum 5 minute consideration period. I suspect the PE hair-trigger is set to 1 second past the minimum 5 minute mark. Honey trap!

Go with @Coupon-mad's advice re 'not relevant land'. It will soon be over.

Plymouth_help

Finally got an update after doing the keeper appeal, using the template given along with a small paragraph suggested by @Coupon-mad

Its been cancelled.

Thank you for everyone's help