Can I challenge being 1 min over my parking time?

Racky_Roo

Morning all,
I went to collect a friend from the Isle of Wight ferry last week. I parked in the 20 min free waiting bay and apparently stayed 21 mins so have been fined £60 if I pay within 14 days.

The invoice is from Parkingeye, who are part of the BPA.

I looked to challenge using the grace period but it doesn't seem applicable for a free bay
"13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period"

I'm fuming as it was only 1 min over, so wanting to ask if anyone thinks I can challenge it and if so, what reason can I use.

Many thanks in advance

Gr1pr

Post redacted pictures of both sides of the NTK PCN letter below 

A picture of the signs there would be very helpful too

Is that NTK PCN letter compliant with POFA or not. ?  Is it relevant land or not. ?

Racky_Roo

I parked in a bay which said 20 min waiting. There was a sign which said those bays were free. The rest of the car park is chargable and those bays are in a different location. I don't have a pic of the signs

I found this from another person's appeal on this site which indicates it isn't relevant land;

"The map on Page 20 of the ABP Byelaws confirms that Southampton Town Quay lies within the boundaries of the Port of Southampton for the purpose of the ABP Byelaws. 

POPLA has previously determined that Southampton Town Quay is not relevant land; I refer you to POPLA case ref. 6060755093 and case ref. 6062356150.

Even if this parking operator states they are not issuing this charge under byelaws (but instead under contract law) POPLA Assessor please note that your Lead Adjudicator confirmed in December 2016 that all Assessors were to receive refresher training after a series of errors where Assessors mistakenly thought that 'not using byelaws' on Port/Harbour land meant they could assume this meant the land wasn't in fact covered by those byelaws.

This is always an error by POPLA and frankly, it needs to stop in 2018. POPLA Assessor, please note and with all due respect please check with the Lead Adjudicator before making this decision, if you mistakenly believe that Port land covered by byelaws is suddenly 'relevant land' and open to keeper liability under the POFA, just because a parking operator uses contract law and doesn't mention those byelaws.

Non-relevant Port & Harbour land remains non-relevant land, regardless. This means keeper liability is not possible under the POFA under any circumstances, no matter what the operator may say in their evidence, regardless of PCN or signage wording"

Does that help. Thanks for reading

Gr1pr

Just follow what this person did below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6468004/parkingeye-ocean-terminal-short-stay-car-park-southampton/p1

Short concise template style appeal by the keeper, online , to Parking Eye, based on the first couple of points they used 

No blabbing about who was driving or about the incident itself either 

Then follow their subsequent winning Popla appeal points, bearing in mind that they used the BPA CoP version 8 but you need to use the more recent BPA CoP version 9 instead 

D_P_Dance

I wonder what a judge would think of a claim for a one minute overstay.  IMO the PPC would be unwise to try to find out

Read this

De minimis is a legal principle which allows for matters that are small scale or of insufficient importance to be exempted from a rule or requirement. It can be used by the courts as an exclusionary tool to dismiss trivial matters from litigation.

Coupon-mad

Do as above but also point out that neither image shows the car parked and that the driver only used the 20 minute drop off bay (parking for under the allowed free 20 minutes) then left.  No breach of the Drop off bay terms occurred.

Racky_Roo

thanks all, will draft a letter tonight. I did think that surely the bay allows a full 20 mins of parking so there should be time to drive into it and out of it, so therefore my extra minute should be allowed

Gr1pr

No letter, use the online appeal process described on the pcn

Its the Drivers extra minute, so be careful in your wordings, no blabbing about or inferring who was driving, so edit your posts and be carefully when drafting and submitting the appeal 

The driver parked, the driver went to collect a friend, the driver may have been one minute over 

Racky_Roo

Gr1pr said:

No letter, use the online appeal process described on the pcn

Its the Drivers extra minute, so be careful in your wordings, no blabbing about or inferring who was driving, so edit your posts and be carefully when drafting and submitting the appeal 

The driver parked, the driver went to collect a friend, the driver may have been one minute over 

ok will do thank you, good advice

Gr1pr

No sign of any editing in your multiple posts above ! Almost every post needs anonymising 

Fruitcake

ANPR scameras only record time on site, not parking time. The vehicle cannot possibly have been parked for 21minutes because it obviously took time to get from where the images were taken to the place where the driver waited, so this should be included in your landowner complaint.

If a landowner cancellation is not forthcoming, then appeal using all the points mentioned above.

Vehicle was not parked for more than 20 minutes. PE have provided no proof that a breach of parking terms occurred.
Driving in and out is not parking. No evidence of parking period shown.
Not relevant land. No keeper liability.