PCN Parkingeye LIDL PZ - Issued 13/05/2024

Coupon-mad

The Equality Act only has relevance if you tell them (if true?) that the person has protected characteristics which is why they needed more time.

murphyb

Apparently so Cm. Im not sure what I could provide if I was asked for evidence of this at the moment but Ive altered the last paragraph. Thanks v much for your help with wording

I bring attention to the equality act of 2010, as the person has protected characteristics, which is why they needed more time and I trust that these regulations will be respected in review of this matter.

Coupon-mad

Yes that is a bit better but why not just state what their diagnosed condition is, and how it affects them in a retail/busy car park scenario?

Umkomaas

In order to resolve this dispute as swiftly as possible, I attach a copy of the drivers bank transactions at Lidl that day as proof of patronage and that they we were a genuine customer customers, in need of a little extra time to make our purchases, return to our vehicle and exit the car park.

My amendments take out any tacit admission of who the driver was. Words I've added are underlined for highlighting purposes only, remove the lines in your final appeal. 

murphyb

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that is a bit better but why not just state what their diagnosed condition is, and how it affects them in a retail/busy car park scenario?

Condition hasnt yet been professionally diagnosed but with the impression I wouldnt have to state that. 

It was mentioned earlier in the thread "without volunteering the reason you disclosed on here... So genuine shopper requiring Extra time under the reasonable adjustments argument " 

So I took it so as to avoid. 

Thanks Umkomass, I'ill integrate a long with Couponmad's suggestion. Third time lucky.....

Coupon-mad

Yes, I would volunteer the issue, if it is a medical condition.  A wide range of conditions slow down people's ability to cope with crowds, process information quickly when making purchasing decisions, etc.

murphyb

OK, here we go... take 3

"In order to resolve this dispute as swiftly as possible, I attach a copy of the bank transaction at Lidl that day, as proof of patronage and that we were genuine customers, in need of a little extra time to make our purchases, return to our vehicle and exit the car park.

The driver has a diagnosis of autism and experiences heightened anxiety in busy retail/car park scenarios. When this happens, they need extra time to self-regulate in order to travel again safely. As the person has protected characteristics subject to the equality act 2010, I trust they will be taken into consideration in review of this matter.

Regards"

Coupon-mad

Much better.  That plus the receipt should work.

murphyb

Appealed, with copy of bank transaction. Thanks all ! I'll update as and when I hear anything...

Full letter for reference:

As keeper of the vehicle with reg number SY54RNJ, I dispute your 'parking charge' and deny any liability or contractual agreement.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close-up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

In order to resolve this dispute as swiftly as possible, I attach a copy of the bank transaction at Lidl that day, as proof of patronage and that we were genuine customers, in need of a little extra time to make our purchases, return to our vehicle and exit the car park.

The driver has a diagnosis of autism and experiences heightened anxiety in busy retail/car park scenarios. When this happens, they need extra time to self-regulate in order to travel again safely. As the person has protected characteristics subject to the equality act 2010, I trust they will be taken into consideration in review of this matter.

Regards

murphyb

UPDATE

Had an automated response after my appeal on 25/5/24, acknowledging receipt.

Today 5/6/24 received the following letter in an email...

"Dear Sir / Madam, Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on 10 May 2024 at 18:14, at Lidl Penzance car park. We would like to confirm that this Parking Charge has now been cancelled and there is no outstanding payment due. If you make any future visits to this car park, please kindly take note of the maximum stay period in operation to avoid incurring any further charges. The terms and conditions will be displayed on the signage located at the entrance and within the car park. Thank you for helping Lidl ensure that every customer has the opportunity to park their vehicle and shop. Yours faithfully, Parkingeye Team"

Thank you all very much for your supportive feedback and for helping me realise a preferred response and outcome.

Lastly for now, in case its of use to anyone, here is what was also included on a separate page... 

"Further Information relating to your enquiry How was a contract formed with the driver? The Parking Charges issued for, and on behalf of, the landowner are levied on the basis of a contract with the motorist, set out via signage at the site. The signage details the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge will be payable, if the terms and conditions are breached. The DVLA release the name and address details of a vehicle keeper to registered companies like ourselves if ‘reasonable cause (i.e. breach of parking regulations) can be shown. We ensure signage is ample, clear, and visible and in line with the BPA Code of Practice to ensure the motorist is bound when they enter and remain at a client site. Parkingeye considers that it is trite law that a contract can be formed in this way. The case of Parkingeye v Beavis and Wardley [2014], proves particularly beneficial when considering the creation of a contract with the driver. Here it was stated that, “it is well established that a valid contract can be made by offer, in the form of terms and conditions set out on the notice, and acceptance, in the form of one’s car in the space provided […] any unequivocal act of acceptance will suffice, and the signs clearly state (as anyone would expect nowadays) that parking constitutes acceptance.” The Supreme Court has now subsequently supported this position and Lord Mance states within the Judgment that, “There is common ground between all before the court that the relationship between Parkingeye and Mr Beavis was a contractual relationship […] Mr Beavis undertook not to park for more [than] two hours and, upon any breach of that obligation, incurred a liability of £85.” He then goes on to state that, “[…] I am satisfied that it is correct in law. The terms of the signs which Mr Beavis must be taken to have accepted by conduct in entering and parking in the car park are to that effect. Mr Beavis thereby expressly agreed to stay for two hours maximum […] and to pay the stipulated sum if he failed so to comply.” Is the Charge enforceable? Is the Charge a penalty? In relation to the value and enforceability of the Parking Charge, Parkingeye relies upon the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Parkingeye v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which was found in Parkingeye’s favour. The Supreme Court considered the Defendant’s submissions that the Parking Charge should be considered to be penal and unfair, but the Justices supported the findings of the lower courts, where the charge was found to be neither ‘extravagant’ nor ‘unconscionable’. In terms of the amount of the Parking Charge, this Judgment, along with the British Parking Association Code of Practice at paragraph 19.5, support the level of Charge issued by Parkingeye, and the Justices note that, “The charge is less than the maximum above which members of the BPA must justify their charges under their code of practice”. Lord Hodge states that, “…local authority practice, the BPA guidance, and also the evidence that it is common practice in the United Kingdom to allow motorists to stay for two hours in such private car parks and then to impose a charge of £85, support the view that such a charge was not manifestly excessive […] the fact that motorists entering the car park were given ample warning of both the time limit of their licence and the amount of the charge also supports the view that the parking charge was not unconscionable.” Parkingeye submits that the Judgment provides clarity and delivers a binding precedent to support the position that our Parking Charges are fair, reasonable and legally enforceable. How can the Charge be enforceable if there is a reduction for early payment? The offer of a reduction is not indicative that the Charge should be considered a penalty. Parkingeye is required to offer a reduction for prompt payment pursuant to clause 19.7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I wasn’t the driver, therefore I will not be paying the Parking Charge? Paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, states that the operator must inform the registered keeper that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay the parking charge in full. It also notes that, as the operator does not know the driver’s name or current postal address, the registered keeper, if they were not the driver at the time, should inform the operator of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass the notice to them. The Act also warns that if, after 29 days, the parking charge has not been paid in full and the operator does not know both the name and current address of the driver, they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from the registered keeper. This warning is given under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to the operator complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act (which Parkingeye firmly believe it has). What is the difference between a Consideration Period and Grace Period? Clause 13.1 of the current BPA Code of Practice, released on 6th January 2020, explains that a driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions of the car park before entering into a parking contract. If a driver decides not to stay and leaves the car park, a reasonable consideration period must be given before the driver can be bound by a parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type of car park, but the code states that it must be a minimum of 5 minutes. Please note, a consideration period does not apply when a parking event has taken place. The BPA Code of Practice defines a parking event as a limited free stay period or when a driver pays for parking. In these instances, a motorist is given a reasonable grace period at the end of their parking event before a Parking Charge Notice is issued. The code states that this period must be a minimum of 10 minutes. Does Parkingeye have the authority to issue Parking Charges? Parkingeye can confirm that it only operates on sites that are situated on private land, are not council owned and that Parkingeye has written authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices on all of its sites from the landowner. Parkingeye must accept or reject my appeal within 35 days? The clause (22.8) to which this argument refers to has been amended and is accessible to the general public in the latest British Parking Association Code of Practice. Parkingeye remain fully compliant with the Code of Practice and all relevant transitional arrangements. Do Parkingeye use CCTV to monitor car parks? Parkingeye use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras and not CCTV cameras to monitor car parks. This technology captures and photographs vehicles entering and exiting the car park and compares this data to the maximum stay that vehicles are entitled to and, where applicable, any payment or permit that may relate to the registration captured. Can I claim back VAT on a Parking Charge Notice? Parking Charge Notices are outside the scope for VAT. Therefore, in accordance with HM Customs, you cannot claim back VAT on this Charge. Where can I view evidence relating to my Parking Charge, including images of my vehicle? You can access the Driver Portal on the Parkingeye website to view evidence relating to your Parking Charge. You will need to enter your Parking Charge Reference and vehicle registration number as found on the correspondence issued by us. Please visit: https://portal.parkingeye.co.uk"